Well, that was an interesting read.....amazing how fast flame wars develop.. I have my own idea about who started it, but that's only a "theory."
Speaking of which, what BaDaBoom referred to as theories are postulates, or ideas. A theory is defined in science as a postulate/idea/concept which has been proven repeatedly by experimentation. It does not disprove any theory set forth from previous years. It can only limit their scope(i.e. microscopic vs macroscopic, "slow" vs "fast" velocities) and/or expand on previous theories. I do believe every theory also introduces new ideas or predicts the existence of new concepts (Maxwell's prediction of constant velocity for light, anti-particles predicted by somebody, I forget what equation, but the solution resulted in negative mass)
Everyone seems to like pointing to Einstein as an example. I've always heard he was a patent clerk, but I don't remember hearing of him being taught physics. I wouldn't be surprised if it were true or false. It is absolutely possible to publish university level work without the benefit of a high school diploma. After all, being given an education by teachers who preach textbooks or reading said textbooks on your own introduces the same information. A degree isn't just a paper handed out unscrupulously (Well, it was pretty much true up until the internet schools popped up). A degree is a certification that you have been educated and when you put forth an idea, it is based upon that education and not some willy nilly dream. It does not mean you are right and the hillbilly next door is wrong. It only provides background information.
Anyways, I haven't read Rebourne's page, I don't intend to, and I do realize this will weaken my position, but I really don't care. I'll be the first to admit I've become pretty biased against his arguments, given the information extracted/scanned from all the previous posts.
About particle/wave duality, BaDaBoom put it forward best, even though he admitted to not understanding/accepting it at all. The glass with 4 oz in it is both half-full and half-empty at the same time, much like matter exhibits wave(no mass) and particle (all mass) behavior depending on how you look at it. If you look at how full the glass is, you measure the fluid in there. If you measure how empty the glass is, you measure the space in there. It all depends on how you look at the glass or observe its behavior.
Personally, having matter exhibit particle and wave behavior makes a lot of sense to me. If you've studied just plain radio waves, which I'm sure some will say is purely wave and no particle behavior at all, and then look at life in general, it just falls into place, really, especially if you couple it with chaos theory. Ever watch a crowd at, say, the stadium walking to their seats? Ever hear of the phrase "history repeats itself"? Or, much better, take some time when driving and actually pay attention to the cars around you. Have you ever noticed that traffic moves in clumps?
If you're going to turn the entire field of physics upside down, you'd better be prepared to be ridiculed even if you bring solid evidence. The more revolutionary the idea, the longer it takes for that idea to be proved, and even longer before it's repeated experimentally again and again until all the data accumulates to the point where your postulate is taken seriously and a new theory is accepted.
The greatest example of our time of postulates shot down in the face of experimental evidence is the idea of cold fusion. Not only has it never been repeated experimentally, but the original paper was dissected and pretty much torn to tatters because it was highly prone to error. In fact, it is now generally accepted that the idea of cold fusion was spawned from looking at the data and not taking into account the error the experimenters introduced and overlooked in their rush to publish such a groundbreaking proposal.
There are a couple other examples, including one by a con artist in the United States who ended up with millions of dollars in research funding for an experimental data transmission protocol over regular phone lines that could transmit full motion video. It was demonstrated many times by the inventor, but nobody could touch the apparatus except the inventor himself. Nobody could examine it, it was not given to any third party research labs for independent verification, none of the standard protocols were followed. In the end, someone got curious/frustrated, and looked in the PC that was receiving full motion video and found a VCR hooked up to a TV.
What's the moral of this whole rant? Don't believe everything everyone tells you. This doesn't just apply to new, radical ideas, but old ones as well. New ideas have a tendency to fall flat on their face, and old theories don't encompass every situation universally. Believe what you want, but take everything with a grain of salt. In the end, the guy toting the loaded AK-47 will probably win against the Neanderthaal with the rock, but lose against the guy driving the tank. The only true measure of whether an idea or a mathematical explanation for a phenomenon is true is whether it can be applied and have it work.
That said, the original post asked a simple question:
electromagnetic waves are movement in... what?
I've heard a few different answers ranging from ether to nothing at all, electromagnetic waves don't "move" per se, they just seem to move.
The best explanation I've heard comes from a comment I read in a book on string theory. The author claimed that if given Maxwell's equations, which are so utterly unintuitive none of my physics professors had them memorized, if you introduce a fifth dimension, the equations collapse into simpler forms.
Mathematics, when proven correctly, is never wrong. If it is wrong, either the derivation is incorrect, the procedure is incorrect, or the whole foundation of mathematics needs revision. How the results are interpreted is up to the observer, and seems to be a great example of the infamous Schroedinger's cat.