The most important in your question is your note about Ether.

We proved Ether doesn't exist. Then light needs to be a particule AND a wave.

Now we have evidence of "dark matter" in the universe. Aren't we reconsidering Ether in a sense?

I mean the fact that we consider light as a particule and a wave is kind of a trick in the absence of a unified law from strong interaction to gravity force.

(If such a law is to be found someday but I hope so)

 Dear Ni Ge,

In fact I want to laugh too much when I read your question, because I want to see how  the proponents of relativity are embarrassed now, when they do not have an answer about your question! in fact Einstein interpretation to the Lorentz transformation in SRT is a big cheat in the century. I'm waiting proponents of relativity to answer your question in order to reply to them. I'm really missing that they share their comments about your question, and the other questions like I post below, which they are all related to each other.

I answered all of these questions and the others in my paper "The Quantization of General Relativity: Photon Mediates Gravitation"  http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002 

All the problems in physics are solved according to my paper from Higgs to Galaxies!!

Dear Cyril Nana, 

I'm really interested in your comment "I mean the fact that we consider light as a particule and a wave is kind of a trick in the absence of a unified law from strong interaction to gravity force". Read my paper  "The Quantization of General Relativity: Photon Mediates Gravitation"  and then you will understand reinterpretation the Lorentz transformation according to Copenhagen school will lead to the wave-particle duality and the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. And then the Lorentz  transformation is vacuum energy dependent instead of the relative velocity. That means when you deal with acceleration according to my transforms, it is vacuum fluctuations. 

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Aether_field_rejected_by_Michelson_Morley_experiment_in_20th_century_but_now_in_21st_century_Higgs_field_is_accepted_Why_is_that

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Loretnz_symmetry_conserved_for_all_velocity_ranges

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_zero_point_energy_explain_the_rotation_curve_of_a_typical_spiral_galaxy_the_flat_appearance_of_the_velocity_curve_out_to_a_large_radius2?_tpcectx=qa_overview_following&_trid=550af0bed039b17b448b45b0_

https://www.researchgate.net/post/From_where_is_the_wave-particle_duality_produced

Dear Gyan,

If we agree that general relativity is true, what is the optical shift that make us state: that after a long time stayed at different inertial frame (0 and 5000m from sea level), a glock gets desynchronized and not pictures taken every seconds?

Dear Cyril,

I agree with you, but are we also RECONSIDERING a constant speed of light?

Dear Azzam,

I understand nearly your theory, but are you also stating there is time dilation? If yes how do you explain my question to Gyan?

Thanks for all your answers.

The author of the cited paper, if I understand its conclusions correctly, seems to ignore the fact that in the rotating frame, the frequency of the two beams is not equal, and thus an interference is observed even though the velocity of light remains the same in both cases.

Dear V.T.Toth

Does that mean the Sagnac effect is wrong ?

Dear Ni Ge: No, not at all! On the contrary, the Sagnac effect and its relativistic derivation are correct. The author's derivation (again, if I understood the paper correctly) may be incorrect, in that the author assumes that the two beams of light are coherent in both the stationary and the rotating frames, which is of course not the case. From this false assumption, the author draws the conclusion that the constancy of c implies that no Sagnac effect should be observed, i.e., that supposedly, relativity theory is wrong.

What I understand from Engelhardt paper:

1. Introduction

2. Calculation of the Sagnac effect with Ether theory

3. Absence of the Sagnac effect with relativity theory

4. The author agree with Ether theory

Am I wrong ? (I think the author is explaining two methods 2. and 3. with the same observator)

Dear Ni Ge: That is exactly my understanding of the paper. However, the rationale for item #3 can be summed up as follows: In the rotating frame, c is still constant, therefore the two coherent beams arrive at the same time, so no Sagnac effect is observed. My point, which the author may have missed, is that in the rotating frame, the two beams are not coherent; they may arrive at the same time, but their frequencies will not be equal and therefore, a phase difference will be observed.

In short: in the stationary (laboratory) frame, one beam takes longer to travel, because the beam splitter moves while the beams are en route, hence there is interference. In the rotating frame, the beams travel the same distance, but their frequencies are unequal, hence there is interference. The two pictures are related to one another by a correct application of a Lorentz transformation (or rather, a generalized coordinate transformation since we are talking about rotating frames, but the principle is the same.)

Dear Valentin,

It is exactly what I am saying (see my profile, you will find the same web link). So, we agree ! But what are the conclusions for a linear moving frame ?

To V.T.Toth: from what I understand at point 3. the author wants to say that in the stationary frame, with special relativity, the time difference occurs to be 0 (t+ - t- = 0). It means there is no Sagnac effect calculated with a stationnary frame, if we follow a right correction of special relativity.

Dear Ni Ge: In the stationary frame, the splitter moves while the beams of light complete their round trip. Therefore, one beam travels a longer path than the other, hence a phase difference necessarily occurs.

Dear V.T.Toth: yes, that is what is predicted by ether theory (point 2.) and wrong correction of special relativity (E.J.Post). I might be wrong...

Dear Luiz: If we follow Einstein, there MUST be a time dilation (see my profil why there is a problem). So, if we consider Maxwell electrodynamics are true, what I think they are, there must be a thing we don't see when we move, like an aberration of field or I don't know what :-).

Dear Ni Ge,

In fact there is no relative velocity. It is a big cheat.  Relative velocity is only proposed in order to keep on objectivity by the Lorentz symmetry in order to keep on the Lorentz invariance basis on objectivity, and by that it is resulted the concept of space-time continuum to define the massive particle.  There is no space-time continuum, it is only time, and space is invariant. Because of that quantum theory separated between space and time, and it is dealing with energy states, which is related to frequency only.

The paper you introduce is good proof that my transforms in my paper  is right. Constancy of the speed of light is only locally and it equals to the speed of light in vacuum. Globally the speed of light is variable depending on time dilation only. But the variability  of the speed of light globally depends only on the absolute value of the velocity and not depends on the direction of the velocity of the moving frame (Review my transforms in my paper), and because of that it interprets the negative results of the Michelson and Morley.  Here according to my interpretation, Lorentz transforms depend on the vacuum energy in case of inertial frame of reference, not the relative velocity. Because of that Lorentz symmetry is refused without any effect to the Lorentz invariance. Lorentz invariance is conserved according to my transforms. According to my transforms it is possible measuring faster than light for massive particles without violation of Lorenz invariance or causality. Review the paper below "Is that true that tachions were found?" If you would like to understand the answer of your question exactly review fig. 1 and fig. 2 in my paper. It is exactly what I predicted in my paper.

 Refusing the reciprocity principle in my theory leads to disappearing all the paradoxes in the SRT; the Twin paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox. Furthermore, according to my interpretation I could reconcile and interpret the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect, Hartman effect— with the SRT in this paper. My new interpretation to the Lorentz transformation equations leads also to the wave-particle duality as in quantum theory, and thus agrees with Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The generalization of my transformation leads also the concept of acceleration or deceleration is vacuum fluctuations as in quantum field theory. 

In this case when we talking about acceleration we talking about four vector, the source of which is the four-current, a first-rank tensor, which means photon mediates gravitation, and there is no graviton. 

 Review my paper regarded to the Pioneer anomaly. By removing Lorentz symmetry and then space-time continuum, it is solved the energy momentum problem in gravity, and the Pioneer anomaly. Review my paper also relative to Comments on the Thermal Origin of the Pioneer Anomaly.

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_that_true_that_tachions_were_found

http://vixra.org/abs/1109.0058

http://vixra.org/abs/1205.0006

Dear Azzam: If I understand good your theory there is a time dilation and no contraction of space? Am I right?

Dear Luiz: I am saying that I refuses the dilemma, nor I agree with Einstein. Something is wrong with our views but I can't say what (like back in the 1900). What I suggest is that our experiences about speed of light are distorted.

Dear Ni Ge,

In my paper I refuse the concept of space-time continuum!

According to my paper the length contraction in my theory is not exist in the length of moving frame along the direction of the velocity, but along the passed distance of the moving frame for observer on the moving train comparing to the measured passed distance of moving train relative to the observer on the ground. And to understand that; suppose a plane flies from Paris to London in a constant speed 0.87c (inertial frame). According to my modification of the Lorentz transformation equations and by removing objectivity, if both the observer on the ground and the observer on the plane (the Pilot) agree that the plane flies from Paris, then during the motion in constant speed 0.87c both of them will not agree at the location of plane at the same time at any point in space  in the distance between Paris and London (because of time dilation), and this is the core of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the Copenhagen school when we deal with the concept of the four vector according to my new transformation. Now if the observer on the ground sees the plane arrives to London, at this moment for the pilot of the plane during the motion at constant speed 0.87c, the plane does not arrive London yet, where he sees his plane is in the middle distance between Paris and London. In this case both the observer on the ground and the pilot will agree on the length of the plane in the direction of the velocity also in y and z coordinates of the plane during the motion. And also they agree at the distance between Paris and London, and because of that space is invariant according to my transforms. Also, they agree at the measured speed of the plane during the motion depending on the measured passed distance and the measured time each one according to his clock. Now if the observer on the ground could stop the plane in the airport of London, where the velocity of the plane becomes zero, and if we neglect the effect of acceleration for simplicity, in this case for the pilot of the plane, the plane transformed from the middle distance between Paris and London to London in a zero time separation, where the pilot confirms that before his plane stops and he finds his plane in London airport, his plane was flying in the middle distance between Paris and London. And when the Pilot try to compute the speed of his plane in London depending on the distance between Paris and London and the registered time by his plane’s clock in London, he will get the speed of his plane is 1.74c, which is greater than the speed of light in vacuum, while according to the clock of the observer on the ground the speed of the plane is 0.87c. where according to the clock of the ground it is impossible measuring the speed of the plane to be faster than light in vacuum. Thus refusing objectivity in the SRT according to my new transformation leads to the possibility of measuring faster than light in vacuum (but not locally) without violation Lorentz transformation or causality, and thus reconciling and interpreting the experimental results of quantum tunneling and entanglement (spooky action), —Casimir effect and Hartman effect. And multiplying the y and z coordinates by the Lorentz factor by refusing objectivity is required in order to interpreting the negative result of the Michelson-Morely experiment. Also by refusing objectivity and then the Lorentz symmetry in the SRT according to my transformation,  that leads to the commutation relations in quantum theory by dealing with the four vectors, and also leads to disappearing all the paradoxes in the SRT; Twin paradox, Ehrenfest paradox, Ladder paradox and Bell's spaceship paradox. If you review the Lorentz transformation equations by this manner by refusing objectivity, you will understand that the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent, and the Lorentz factor is the refractive index in optics, and the concept of acceleration or deceleration is vacuum fluctuations which quantized, and that illustrates to you why the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is related to vacuum. Refusing objectivity in the SRT according to my modified relativity illustrates to you how string theory succeeded in some cases to unify between quantum theory and relativity by proposing a string of two endpoints. The proposing of a string of two endpoints in string theory leads to refusing objectivity in SRT indirectly, but that is not enough in the case of unifying GR with quantum theory as you will see in my quantization of GR, and how I succeeded to that. Review my paper below

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.10.002

Dear Ni Ge,

The paper you mention

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261700742_Classical_and_Relativistic_Derivation_of_the_Sagnac_Effect  is exactly agreed with what predicted and my theory answers all of you questions relative to that. That's no all. Review the recent published papers below and you will find the answer in my paper also. This is no all, there are more and more

Three times my paper endorsed to be posted in arixv, but moderators removed it. They understand well, a student in high school will understand I'm right and Einstein wrong.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141219085153.htm?utm_source=feedburner

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

Article Classical and Relativistic Derivation of the Sagnac Effect

Dear Azzam: If I have a good understanding, there is a time desceleration (= time is slower) for the moving observer which can't be seen until he catches B. If so, how do you explain the frequencies of frame (imagine they take a picture every seconds) seen by each observers, are they the same for each?

I think it is an inversed problem. If you consider the pilot, he states a contraction of the ground length. No?

Dear Ni Ge,

Suppose that the observer on the group looks at the clock of the moving frame, In this case he will see the clock of the moving frame is moving in a slower rate than his clock. Now if the observer on the moving frame looks at the clock on the ground, he will not see the clock on the ground is moving in a slower rate than his clock as in Einstein's SRT according to the reciprocity principle, and from that it is resulted the twin paradox. According to my theory, the observer on the moving train sees the clock of ground is moving in a similar rate of his clock on the moving frame, and because of that he considers the clock on the ground is stationary same as his clock on his moving frame. According to my theory since the clock on the ground is moving in a similar rate of the clock of the moving train for the observer on the moving frame, in this case the events that the observer is seeing now for him from the ground are considered as past happened relative the observer on the ground. So during the motion in constant speed, the observer on the moving train sees the observer on the ground is growing up in a same rate of his growing. And when the train stops and the observer  drops from his train, he will find the observer on the ground is older than he was seeing him before his frame stopped. There is a cut of time for him, where a number of events that happened on ground for the observer on the ground not seen by the observer on the moving train, because before the train stopped the observer of the train was seeing events happened in the past for the observer of the ground. This exactly same what happened in the case of  virtual particles. According to my theory, all the paradoxes are disappeared. Here you must understand what is the concept of acceleration or decelerations and how it is related to quantum theory and the vacuum fluctuations, wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle....they are one thing according to my transforms, 

I can't understand your statement: "Suppose that the observer on the group looks at the clock of the moving frame, In this case he will see the clock of the moving frame is moving in a slower rate than his clock." For me, it is impossible to have this effect. I understand there could be a time shift, but a time dilation sounds to me wrong. But maybe you are right. A better illustration (than this in your work) of what is happening could be helpful.

Sincerely.

Dear Ni Gi

According to my transformation it is resulted the Lorentz transformation is vacuum energy dependent, and then the Lorentz factor is equivalent to the refractive index in optics, that means according to quantum theory when the light incident inside the moving train with constant speed v, From that we get the Helmholtz equation for phenomena periodic in time, with a frequency of f=w/2pi inside the moving train for the observer on the ground. Now for the moving train  in constant speed v on the ground the wave that describe its motion is given by solving Schroedinger equation with potential equals to zero relative to the observer on the ground. According to my transformation you can understand the relationship between the potential, vacuum and medium. Now when you talking about the fields, you are talking about the changing of the potential, and that equivalent according to my transformation to vacuum fluctuations, and thus in order to understand how field described according to my transformation you must study my equivalence principle in my theory and how that related to changing the potential according to my transformation.

But now by refusing the Lorentz symmetry in my transformation which is leading to disappearing all the paradoxes, then for the observer of the moving train, it is considered the difference of vacuum of the earth surface comparing to the vacuum of the moving train for the observer of the moving train is negative,(refractive index) to be purely imaginary. Then the solution of Helmholtz's equation is called an evanescent mode in this case it is leading to measure a faster than light, where in this case when the train stopped decelerate, then the vacuum fluctuates.

Dear Gyan and all,

The topic was to discuss about how we calculated the speed of light. Can speed of light be faster than c, in order to confirm ether/absolute theory or have we missed another thing to falsify Einstein theory? Engelhardt (and some searchers like Danci) says ether/absolute theory is right. But if you accept ether/absolute theory, you have to accept a speed of light faster than c. Whenever, I think that speed of light has been right calculated as a constant (Cyril, Toth) and then, nor ether theory, nor special relativity is correct.

Like I told to Luiz, there must be an aberration of field, or something like that, which distort the observator's view. Azzam thinks about a transformation in vacuum energy.

I hope I am clear.

Dear Danci: I agree with you and I am talking about measured velocity, nevertheless c+v means the information is going faster than c. Right?

Anyway, I think there is no other solution than to accept that your view of addition of speed is correct and that Engelhardt argumented a good point.

I know.

But admit you are correct, shouldn't exist an absolute referential? I think you say YES. Doesn't that means there is a center in the universe? That sounds me so crazy...

Wow! I would like to have a concrete proof of it :-). But it seems all the data are corroborating your thought.

Dear Gyan: thank you for the reference to Hertz theory (a link would be nice). This theory seems very near to Danci view (if it is not the same view) and is apprently the correct answer. But as you said, it needs to be proven.

Nevertheless time dilation (Einstein's theory) is refutated by the fact that pictures taken every seconds by two different observators are not desynchronized like atomic clocks.

Dear Luiz: the answer is on my profile:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/269517743_Problem_with_Emc2

Here attached (be careful on the colors):

Note: it is why Mohamed points at something MAYBE OR NOT interesting...

Dear Ni Ge,

As I informed you the problem of Sagnac effect is solved completely according to my transformation. I'll explain that to you now;

According to my transforms  in fig.1 and fig. 2 in my paper

 Suppose a light beam is sent inside the moving train. According to my transforms for the observer on the ground according to his clock. The time required for the light beam to pass the length of the moving train in the direction of the velocity is the same time required for light beam if it is sent in the opposite direction of the velocity. So inside the moving train the speed of light is constant and it is not dependent on the direction of the velocity. This illustrates the negative result of the Michelson and Morely. According to this time required to the light beam to pass the length of the moving train according to the clock of the earth observer, and then according to the clock of the moving train, you can reach to the time dilation.

Now the problem here is when the light beam is exist from the vacuum of the moving train. In this case according to my transforms the light which exit from the vacuum of moving train in the direction of the velocity, the wavelength of the light beam will increase because of the length contraction and time dilation. According to my transforms the length contraction will cause the delay of passed distance of moving train for the observer of the moving train comparing to the measured passed distance of the moving train relative to the observer on the ground review fig. 1 and fig 2 in my paper. In this case because of the increase in the wavelength of light beam, that leads to decrease in the frequency. The speed of light remains constant and equals to the speed of light in vacuum outside the moving train. Now for the light beam which is exit from the vacuum of the moving train in the direction opposite to the direction of the velocity and because of the length contraction as interpreted in my transforms and time dilation, the wavelength will decrease and thus the frequency will increase. Because of that it is causes the interference between the two beams. The two beams are exited the length of the moving train -in the direction of the velocity or in the opposite of the direction of the velocity-  at the same time, none of them are exited before the other. But the interference are caused because of my interpretation of the length contraction and time dilation depending on refusing objectivity in the Lorentz transformation, and then refusing symmetry. You can compare the relative simultaneity in Einstein's interpretation to the Lorentz transformations depending on the objectivity and the symmetry, and compare it with my interpretation. Einstein SRT can't interpret the Sagnac effect really. 

Dear Azzam: To be sure I am clear, I never said you are wrong! And now, I think I've got your theory: from ground observer there is time dilation of the moving frame and from moving observer there is length contraction of the ground. Am I right? That sounds good. So we have a new theory which could as you say corroborate all what has been done in physics since 1900. But now, who is right you or ether/absolute theory?

Sorry there is no conflict between them, because vacuum energy acts like a sort of ether.

Dear Ni Ge,

In fact there is no length contraction in the ground. I think you may understand my interpretation of the length contraction in a wrong way. In my theory I adopted the concept of Copenhagen school to the phenomenon, which means refusing objectivity. According to my theory space is invariant. As I explained to you before, Both the moving observer on the train and the observer on the ground are agreed at the length of the moving train in x,y and z same if the train is stationary, and also they agree at  any distance on the ground same if the train is stationary. But according to my theory each observer will create his own picture about the location of the moving train now in space according to his time of his clock. Because of time dilation, for example, if the observer on the ground sees the train arrived to point x at time t now, then for the observer on the moving train, his train is not reached now to point x yet, it is still approaching to x, where for the rider of the moving train, his train now in point x' where x'=gama^-1*x, at his time according to his clock t'=gama^-1*t. For me I think my theory is reconciling relativity with the concept of ether by keeping on the constancy of the speed of light. What I found the motion of the light beam inside a medium is same the motion of the light beam inside the moving train, is same the motion of the light beam in a potential and is same motion of the light in vacuum for the global observer.

Understood! I wasn't pretending there was a contraction, but that the moving observer might view a contraction (what is wrong because of his referential). Effectively, here space is invariant.

I appreciate your theory Azzam, but you can't break the "principle of relativity".

Dear Ni Gi,

Do you know why proponents of relativity refuse any modification in SRT. As I understood later from them, the only solution of modification relativity in order to be consistent with quantum is my theory! That is by removing objectivity in the interpretation of the Lorentz transformation in SRT. Removing objectivity from the Lorentz transformation equations means solving the Zeno's paradox by physics http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/#SH1c . That means the materialism which governs our world now is wrong, and idealism is right! Materialism is built basis on objectivity and continuity in the classical physics. When Newton's built his theory of gravity, Nietzsche refused the idea of God.

Most of proponents of relativity hate quantum theory because of that, and they do their best to not SRT changed in order to keep on objectivity as people people believe  now in objectivity. SRT is the only theory now keep on objectivity.

If you review my transforms, you will understand when Zeno's paradox solved by removing objectivity and symmetry in the Lorentz transformation, then it is talking about the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle. Then you will understand the plato cave. Review my paper in http://vixra.org/abs/1206.0002 about the philosophy of unified theory. This paper is presented in the conference of Toward a science of consciousness 2008 Tuscon, Arizona. It is exactly the philosophy of Plato, but it is by physics.

Thus if idealism is right and the world becomes moral, then it is Utopia that is predicted by Plato. Who governs the world now, they think, it is not the time for Utopia now! Believe me and trust in me the problem is not physics!

 Proponents of relativity are hidden, they just put downvote poor content if the comment is against SRT, and vote interesting answer if the comment agree with relativity.  I hope they have the courage to discuss about this question, and the other questions. ٍSometimes I like their infirmity....LOL! They ignore everything against relativity.

 It is only time and then the truth will be appeared. I advice them to read "The Butterfly Effect". 

Dear Ni Ge,

Regarded to your question " how space can be invariant (without objectivity)".

I really interested in your question, and that will let you to understand well how Sagnac effect is impossible to be solved by SRT.

In fact the invariance of space and time is impossible according to objectivity in the Lorentz transformation, because of that according to Einstein SRT it is resulted the concept of space-time continuum.

Now by removing objectivity, it is resulted space is invariant and time is not invariant. That means separated between time and space, and because of that quantum theory refusing objectivity and separated between space and time.

Now how space is invariant? Suppose a train is moving in constant speed v. According to the invariance of space, that means both observer on the moving train and the observer on ground will measure the same length of the moving train same if the train is stationary. Also both of them will agree at the space separation between two points in space on the ground same if the train is stationary. Thus for the observer on the moving train the length of the moving train locally for him is x0', y0', z0', and for the ground observer the length of the moving train is defined locally as x0, y0, z0 where according to the invariance of space x0=x0', y0=y0' , z0=z0'.

and same relative to the space in ground.

Now what is Lorentz transformation equations?

Suppose a light beam is sent from back to front inside the moving train in the direction of the velocity, and suppose at time t0 the observer on the ground defined the location of the train at point x0 . in this case according to Galilean transformation the light beam is at distance x inside the moving train where x=x0-vt0, and in order to light beam to be constant, it must t=t0-vt0/c2 Now, if the light beam is sent in the opposite direction of the velocity, then we get x=x0 +vt0 and t=t0+vx0/c2. Since the light beam is sent inside the moving train, then its motion is governed by the space, and time of the moving train. Thus how x is defined according to the space and time of the moving train. Here if the observer on the ground sees the train at x0 then for the observer on the moving train the train is not reached x0 yet it is still in

 x'=R-1 x0 where R is the Lorentz factor and this distance was passed in a time

t'=R-1 t0 according to the clock of the moving train. According to that we get x=R(x'-vt') and t=R(t ’-vx’/c2 ), and remember according to my transformation y=Ry' and z=Rz', that explains the negative result of the Michelson Morely experiment. Now for the light beam which is sent from back to front inside the moving train in the direction of the velocity. Now when the light beam exits from the front, then light beam must reach the front for the observer on  the moving train and for the observer on the ground, and then it exits. But according to my transformation and by refusing objectivity, both the observer on the ground and the observer of the moving train are not agreed at the location of the front at x0, where if the observer on the ground sees the front of the moving train at x0, then for the observer on the moving train the front of his moving train is not in x0 yet, where his moving train front still approaching to x0, where the front of his moving train is at distance x'=R-1 x0, Now when the light beam reached to the front of the moving train for the observer on the moving train. In this case the front of the moving train will arrive x0for the observer on the moving train in time t0 according to his clock on the moving train. In this case the light arrives  the front of the moving train also for the observer on the ground. But the observer on the ground sees the front of the moving train is not in x0 but it passed x0 and the front is at x=Rx0 now,at time t=Rt0 according to his ground clock.In this case when the light beam exits the moving train, then it transformed from x0 to Rx0 in a zero time separation. That causing a change in the frequency of the light beam and the wavelength as the light beam was carried by the medium and was pushed to front of the moving train, and that cases the blue shift. Similar to that for the light beam which is exit from the back of the moving train in the opposite direction of the velocity and because our concept to the length contraction the back was at distance x0 for the frame of reference of the moving train, and when the light beam is appeared on the ground it appeared in Rx0 where the back exists in the frame of reference of the ground.The back transformed from x0 to Rx0 in a zero time separation. Thus the frequency and the wavelength of the light beam will changes as the light beam was pulled. This effect is appeared only for the observer on the ground, while the observer on the moving will not affected by this effect. Also this effect when this effect appeared, that does not mean the velocity of the light beam differed for the observer on the ground when the light beam sent inside the moving train in the opposite direction of the velocity or in the direction of the velocity. The time required for light beam to pass the length of the moving train in direction of the velocity is the same time required to the light beam to pass the length of the moving train if the light is sent in the opposite direction of the velocity according to the clock of the ground for the observer on the ground. That illustrates the negative result of the Michelson Morely experiment.

Now how is the time dilation?

Since when the light reaches to the front of the moving train, now for the moving observer on the moving train the front of the moving train is at x'=x0 on the ground, and time measured according to his clock is t'=t0. Now for the observer on the ground, the front of the moving train is at x=Rx0, at time t=Rt0. in this case we can right t=Rt' which is the equation of Einstein for the time dilation. Since the length of the moving train is locally on the ground defined L0 which is invariant if the train is moving or stationary. In this case when you try to measure light speed according to the local length of the moving train dividing to  time t the time according to the ground clock you get as the speed of light is decreased same as if the light beam is incident inside a medium of refractive index greater than 1, where you get c'=L0/Rt0=L0/Rt'=R-1c. But by considering the light is taken longer path, and because of that it took longer time to pass the front according to my transforms, in this case you get c'=RL0/Rt0=RL'/Rt'=c. According to our transforms the speed of light is c the speed of light in vacuum for both the observer on ground and the observer on the moving train, and this speed is not depending on the direction of sending the light beam in the direction of the velocity or in the opposite direction of the velocity, or in y or z coordinates.

Dear Ni Ge,

My theory is proved by unsolved problems in physics. It solves all the problems in physics. According to my theory I succeeded in quantization of gravity. And I reached photon mediates gravitation, and there is no graviton. All the experimental measurements agreed completely with my theory. I have hundreds of unsolved problems and it solved by my theory. Proponents of relativity refused to discuss because they have noting to say in front of my theory.

Aether field rejected by Michelson Morley experiment in 20th century, but now in 21st century Higgs field is accepted. Why is that?

Are the aether and Higgs fields equivalent? If yes, how can we accept it in the light of Michelson-Morely experiment? If not, in which manner are these two fields different?

Now this question is solved according to my theory, and only that there are more and more. What about the pioneer anomaly and how it is related to the energy momentum problem in physics. It is  solved exactly in my theory. what about Sagnac effect? I solved all the problems from Higgs to Galaxies.

Why all the paradoxes are disappeared in my theory and quantum tunneling and entanglements (Spooky actions) are solved. Proponents of relativity do not understand  whether Lorentz symmetry is conserved for all the velocity ranges or not? Is the Lorentz invariance completely related to Lorentz symmetry; i.e. if Lorentz symmetry conserved then Lorentz invariance is also conserved or there are certain conditions where the Lorentz invariance conserved while Lorentz symmetry is not? what are they if there are such conditions. Review the recent published papers and how they agreed completely with my theory. I told you proponents of relativity do not have the courage to discuss. 

Dear Ni Ge,

If you want to understand my theory well you must understand what is the concept of acceleration and deceleration according to Einstein transforms basis on objectivity , and according to my transforms by refusing objectivity. This is the only difference. So when the train decelerates how the observer on the moving train sees outside on the ground. This is the trick! Why proponents of relativity and Einstein himself says nothing about that, while they propose acceleration and deceleration to solve all the paradoxes in SRT. How is that???? 

Einstein simply used objectivity to interpret the Lorentz transforms that means as I explained in my previous comment that both the observer on the ground and the observer on the moving train are agreed at the location of the front at point in space x0 on the ground.This objectivity and then Einstein proposed the concept of relative simultaneity. And led Einstein to adopt the Lorentz symmetry in order to keep on invariance.

Einstein  solution is in contraction with Heisenberg uncertainty principle and the wave-particle duality. Because of that he was hating quantum theory and Heisenberg uncertainty. This is very clear in my theory. Now every thing becomes clear and very simple to be understood.

http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2014/jul/28/new-correction-to-speed-of-light-could-explain-sn1987-neutrino-burst

https://www.sciencenews.org/article/speed-light-not-so-constant-after-all

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/12/141219085153.htm?utm_source=feedburner

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Loretnz_symmetry_conserved_for_all_velocity_ranges

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Aether_field_rejected_by_Michelson_Morley_experiment_in_20th_century_but_now_in_21st_century_Higgs_field_is_accepted_Why_is_that