TSW: "... all photons, assuming they all have identical masses, would have the same energy ... a return to the simple particle or ballistic theory of light was not tenable."
BW: Yes, an unreasonable assumption that they have identical masses. So, although they all have the same fundamental characteristics, the mass of a photon has to be directly correlated to its frequency. Of course, "relativistic mass" confuses the issue with a zero "rest mass", but ... assuming light is traveling at c, then the masses must be different. Also note that a photon doesn't have to be a rigid, spherical particle.
TSW: "Planck, however, speculated that radiation was emitted in bundles or packets, quanta, which were propagated as waves."
BW: Actually, that interpretation was imposed on him by others; he just noted a mathematical correlation. In my view, the Planck Constant is actually just a conversion factor, from frequency to energy. Properly understood, it just means that frequency is a *proxy* for mass, not that there are "jumps" in light frequency, mass, or energy. There are no bundles or packets. Photons are just (variable) masses in a particular configuration that results in a (variable) frequency in (variable) motion.
TSW: "Einstein‘s light is a microcosm without a macrocosm. This is why he was opposed to the idea of ether ..."
BW: I can provide a dozen Einstein quotes in which he says it *must* exist, but that his formulation doesn't require (or allow) us to measure or quantify any features of the aether medium. As I've pointed out before, SR was just a convenient way to evade the results of the M-M experiment and preserve light as a wave.
TSW: "... Morley, Michelson, and Dayton Miller ... performed numerous experiments ... with much improved apparatus. Many were done at high altitude under reduced shielding, which increased the effect dramatically ... Voluminous evidence was compiled in favor of ether drift."
BW: M-M and Miller concluded exactly the same thing: no detection of known planetary motion. M-M thought they had found a tiny effect, about one fortieth of their prediction, but Miller explicitly said Earth motion "could not be identified in the curves of observation." He did report a tiny cosmologic drift, "incompatible with zero", toward the constellation Dorado, which also happens to be the South Ecliptic Pole, suggesting that the deviation was simply an effect of cyclical ecliptic tilts.
TSW: "... unheralded experiments in the Ukraine by Y. M. Galaev once again confirmed Miller’s detection of the ether."
BW: He only confirmed the tiny cosmologic drift found by Miller. Both results have been highly disputed and neither has been confirmed by any modern experiment. Aether "entrainment" was disproved by Feynman, since the friction would require that the Earth's orbital velocity would have been reduced by 20% since the planet's formation ... clearly not possible.
TSW: "4. Like the atmosphere, the density of the etherosphere increases with nearness to the surface of the earth."
BW: This is a direct contradiction of your statement in the Neomechanical Gravitation Theory paper, which says "The activity and density of free aether particles are greatest in the so-called vacuum of intergalactic space ..." You can't have it both ways.
TSW: "5. Like all wave motion, the velocity of light in ether is not constant, but varies as a function of ether density, temperature, viscosity, and elasticity."
BW: Although you discuss density, you never describe any of the other characteristics. Of course, it's difficult to do that for objects that have never been detected. You're simply assuming that the aether is similar to water, air, and other media ... as has been done for decades.
Next: The Univironmental Theory of Light (Part 2 of 3)