All good points! Thanks for digging up your FAQ for me, I had run across it before in my wanderings so I've had some time to think.Since you haven't invoked quantum mechanics in this argument, it isn't an argument against the existence of photons, it's an argument against the existence of classical electromagnetic waves.
...If you want to post about your doubts about photons, that belongs in the Quantum Physics forum. If you want to post about the question of frames moving at c, then that does belong in this forum, but ...it gets tiresome to cover the same ground over and over.
Either way, I would encourage you to start fresh threads...
On the topic of frames of reference moving at c, here is a FAQ I've written...
we need to be able to physically realize this frame in terms of an observer and measuring devices. But we can't. It would take an infinite amount of energy...
other reasons not to allow such frames...there is a restriction that they should be smooth, one-to-one functions...for v=c, it wouldn't be one-to-one, so it wouldn't be mathematically compatible with the structure of relativity. (An easy way to see that it can't be one-to-one is that the length contraction would reduce a finite distance to a point.)
...the observer's frame of reference isn't moving at c. Either way, we don't get an observer moving at c.
I am certainly willing to move to other forums. As you can see, path contraction (to zero) is central to my reinterpretation of "photon" and that's why I started here. But having stated that (in my earlier replies today), I may be finished here because the question of its impact on the wave aspects of light, implications at low frequency and for static charge (0 Hz) forces can be can be anticipated and would be more appropriately addressed elsewhere.
Regarding the requirement for smooth one-to-one functions:
I had not been aware of the requirement (but that is true for a great deal).
You may be completely correct.
But I wonder, does a point really know it's just one? I think we may be able to specify a single location (at least mathematically) but I don't think we can require it to contain only a single point.