About the mesons as photons emitters you mention may be you are referring to Alvaeger experiment (https://www.uam.es/p...eger-PL1964.pdf) but this experiment is invalidated because they neglect the extinction effect while the gamma rays pass through some "walls" (may be just the "thin mylar window") of the experiment setup which nullifies the source component of the photons' final velocity.

Your mention of the

Ewald–Oseen extinction theorem, which despite being about 100 years old, wasn’t included in my modern physics education, led me to a wonderful epiphany.

I imagined that the reduced speed of light in non-vacuum media described by its refractive index occurred because the absorption and emission of photons by electrons of the atoms took some small amount of time. Photons always travel at the speed of light in vacuum (let’s ignore this thread’s question of

*relative to what?* for the moment), regardless of whether they’re traveling through large volumes of pure vacuum (refractive index n=1) or dense transparent crystals (eg typical glass, n=~1.5). The analogy photons being cars traveling along a highway with frequent toll booths was my attempt to understand how photons could always travel at c in the vacuum between other particles, yet travel slower than c through materials like air or glass.

Like most “pseudoclassical” interpretations of quantum mechanics, mine was wrong. Photons aren’t classical bodies that stop and go like cars. In QM, (specifically,

electrodynamics) refraction is expressed as the result of the probability-weighted sum of the all possible paths of a particle interacting with other particles, which is equivalent to the quantum wave function of all the particles. The effective speed of a signal – a photon entering and leaving a volume of space – comes from the wave functions of the photons from the atoms, which give a speed of exactly c, interfering with one another to produce a composite wave function giving a speed of [math]\frac{c}{n}[/math].

I'm not sure about your calculations but I haven't heard anywhere about GPS satellites disproving the Emission Theory of light so I stay with the possibility.

I still encourage you to study the GPS. Although technically complicated, it’s literature is publicly available, and unlike a high-precision optics experiment, the expensive (about $US 12,000,000,000 intially, $750,000,000/year ongoing) space-based part of GPS is built and available for free use by everyone, while receivers are inexpensive enough that nearly everyone can afford one.

Please feel free to check my calculations. All the needed data is available online, and the math and geometry needed is high-school level.

If you follow through with this research and work, I think you conclude that if the ballistic theory of light was true, the GPS algorithm would need to have adjustments added for the system to be usable, and that since it contains no such adjustment, and GPS works with high accuracy, the ballistic theory of light is wrong.

Please give a chance for "A New Light In Physics" (http://www.geocities...wlightinphysics) to be taken in consideration...

I’ve read your webpages, and have some questions unrelated to the constancy of c, but until you acknowledge the need for your theory to agree with Relativity, I can’t, and I doubt many others will be able to take you seriously. Denying the conclusion reached in many experiments that c is constant regardless of the velocity of the light source and lab is nearly certain to brand you a

relativity denier and a crank in the eyes of most scientists and science enthusiasts.