On Aug 4, 4:10*pm, PD wrote:
It appears you insist on saying that the wave MUST be material-medium-
based, come hell or high water and therefore
1. The observations that are inconsistent with the deduced stiffness
of the hypothesized material medium need to be ignored, and
2. The measurements of light speed that show c and not c+v or c-v
(where motion between source and observer is the putative cause and
not a gravitational field) need to be ignored.

No Clever Draper I just insist on paying some more attention to Divine
Albert's 1909 insights:

http://www.astrofind.net/documents/t...radiation..php
The Development of Our Views on the Composition and Essence of
Radiation by Albert Einstein
Albert Einstein 1909: "A large body of facts shows undeniably that
light has certain fundamental properties that are better explained by
Newton's emission theory of light than by the oscillation theory. For
this reason, I believe that the next phase in the development of
theoretical physics will bring us a theory of light that can be
considered a fusion of the oscillation and emission theories. The
purpose of the following remarks is to justify this belief and to show
that a profound change in our views on the composition and essence of
light is imperative.....Then the electromagnetic fields that make up
light no longer appear as a state of a hypothetical medium, but rather
as independent entities that the light source gives off, just as in
Newton's emission theory of light......Relativity theory has changed
our views on light. Light is conceived not as a manifestation of the
state of some hypothetical medium, but rather as an independent entity
like matter. Moreover, this theory shares with the corpuscular theory
of light the unusual property that light carries inertial mass from
the emitting to the absorbing object."

Pentcho Valev