Looks like to me the same test that was done by Michelson and Morley, but not every illustration shows the similarity.  Look at http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/relativ/mmhist.html and scroll down to the figure, for example.

Dear Robert,

No, it is not the same test.

The test you gave me is exactly this one which showed time dilation and length contraction. (The moving observer sees a "I" and the ground observer sees a "V".)

Here the test is reversed, time could be contracted and length could be dilated if we admit that c is constant for both observers. (The moving observer sees a "V" and the ground observer sees a "I".)

We could test both simultaneously ("I"/"V" for moving and "V"/"I" for ground), but one of the observation will mesure a different speed of light than c.

Dear Mohamed,

I just ask myself if LT are enough to describe the whole ether/SRT phenomenon.

My test is to pulse a light by an angle backward in a moving referential and mesure it from a ground station.

Dear Ni Ge,

I use it in my theory in quantization of gravity, but how is time contraction? Read it in my paper "Time Contraction: The Possibility of Faster Than Light without Violation of Lorentz Transformation or Causality and the Vacuum Energy Dependent"  http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.04.001

Then read my paper relative to quantization of gravity

The Quantization of General Relativity: Photon Mediates Gravitation

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

http://dx.doi.org/10.14299/ijser.2014.04.001

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

Dear Ni Ge,

but one of the observation will mesure a different speed of light than c.

Yes you are completely right "one of the observation will measure a different speed of light than c" and because of that light speed is decreased globally but not locally by gravity and in case of refractive index greater than 1. In case of negative vacuum energy or refractive index less than 1 it is measured a light speed faster than light in vacuum globally but locally not. In both cases there is no violation of Lorentz invariance or causality. But we think it is violated in case of measuring faster than light according to Einstein interpretation of Lorentz transforms according to the relative simultaneity which led to space-time continuum, and then to curved space-time in GR.

Dear Azzam,

Thank you for your answer.

"Yes you are completely right "one of the observation will measure a different speed of light than c""

Where can we find a proof (an experiment) of it? As I know c is constant everywhere.

Dear Ni Ge,

The proof is very easy. Read my theory and review all the experiments and observations in quantum theory and relativity, if there is one experiment violates my theory, then my theory is wrong. Review all the unsolved problems in physics, and see if any of the unsolved problems in physics not solved by my theory, then my theory is wrong. None of the physicists could unify between quantum theory and relativity. I proposed a solution, and my solution agrees with all the observations and experiments, so it must be studied by physicists if they want really to reach to the unified theory.

Dear Azzam,

You say "the proof is very easy", but you didn't showed me an experiment which prove it.

Dear Ni Ge,

Review Pond and Rebka exepriment,

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

Review

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

I predicted in that before they announce it in my transformations the wave-particle duality and Heisenberg uncertainty principle are one thing, Do you think that is for chance in my paper?

Review also this experiment

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

Review also,

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-particle.html

This is what I predicted also in my paper.

Review the Pioneer anomaly and the energy momentum problem in GR and how it solved according to my theory.

Is that enough, and it is required more

And there are many and many

Dear Azzam,

Thank you, the papers are interesting, but:

Franson's Calculations is about gravity, nothing to do with SRT.

The second Review is about Heisenberg's principle, nothing to do with my question.

The experiment Review is using a mask, which is different of my question. (As I understand, you say then that ground observer will see a slowed light in my question. Nevertheless it seems also that light can go faster than c, then the ground observer could also see a speed of c and the moving observer see a speed faster than light. Finaly it doesn't answer to my question.)

And the last Review is again about Heisenberg's principle.

Anyway thank you.

Dear Ni Ge,

Your example with a moving mirror coincides with the situation that was described by Mr. Michelson himself after his famous experiment.   

The critical approach to the experiment, comparison of the original experiment and a possible new way of experimentation is shown in my paper published recently ‘Absolute Motion. The problem and the Solution’.

You can download the paper from my profile. I hope, it will be helpful for you.

The paper explains the situation with moving mirror and the incident ray in different cases. In some cases, Mr. Michelson gives explanations that contradict the law of geometrical optics.

Dear Ni Ge

I ask you to explain those who speak of the constancy of the speed of light, about of origin of the shift of the fringes in the interferometer M&M in the medium (Miller-1925), why there is a dependence of the motion of light in the medium on the direction of the movement of light in the stellar reference system in the observations of Demyanov, Cahill, Glushko and others.

PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, October 2006, Volume 4, p.73-92, Reginald T. Cahill

A New Light-Speed box Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves ; or

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS16.pdf

 In my theory (See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272622631_Absolute._Main_principles  ) there is no requirement of constant speed of light in vacuum in each reference frame(RF). I believe that the speed of light is constant only in a static vacuum (in the absolute frame of reference), and in other RFs, the speed of light, lengths and time vary depending on the Absolute velocity of the RF. But this speed is different for every RF, therefore, we can obtain in other RF and the contraction of lengths and tension, and slowing down time, and time acceleration, compared to our RF. But if I observe time dilation in second RF then they in second RF will observe time contraction (acceleration) in my RF.

 Thus in my RF I can observe the speed of light is greater than the constant "c"! But the speed of light is still greater than the speed of any particle and any body in my reference system in this direction. That is, nothing can outrun light. Of course, here there are not the Lorentz transformations, but the transformation of Eagle, eq.(14)

---

Уважаемый Ni Ge,

Тех, кто говорит о постоянстве скорости света, я прошу объяснить, откуда берется сдвиг полос в интерферометре М&М в среде (Miller-1925), почему имеется зависимость времени движения света в среде от направления движения света в звездной системе отсчета в наблюдениях Демьянова, Кахилла, Глушко и др.

PROGRESS IN PHYSICS, October 2006, Volume 4, p.73-92,  Reginald T. Cahill

 A New Light-Speed Anisotropy Experiment: Absolute Motion and Gravitational Waves Detected; or

http://www.mountainman.com.au/process_physics/HPS16.pdf

 В моей теории (See https://www.researchgate.net/publication/272622631_Absolute._Main_principles   ) нет требования постоянной скорости света в вакууме в каждой системе отсчета. Я полагаю, что скорость света постоянная только в неподвижном вакууме (в абсолютной системе отсчета), а в остальных системах отсчета, скорость света, длины и времена изменяются в зависимости от Абсолютной скорости этой системе отсчета (RF). Но скорости разные у всех RF, поэтому мы в своей RF можем видеть и сокращение длин и их растяжение, и замедление времени, и его ускорение, по сравнению с другими RF. Но если бы я наблюдать замедление времени в CО второго потом они в СО второго будете наблюдать время сокращения (ускорения) в мой СО.

Тогда в моей RF я могу наблюдать скорость распространения света больше чем константа «c»! Но эта скорость света в любом случае остается большей, чем скорость движения любой частицы, любого тела в моей системе отсчета в этом направлении. То есть, ничто не может обогнать свет! Конечно, здесь используются не преобразования Лоренца, а преобразования Eagle ф.(14).

Article Absolute. Main principles

Dear Allan,

I see some mistakes in your paper:

First (eq 4) is not: (2DV^2)/(V^2-v^2) = 2D(1+(v/V)^2) but must be:

(2DV^2)/(V^2-v^2) = 2D(1+v^2/(V^2-v^2))

And second (eq 12) the boat will not cover the distance s(AB) with the duration D(AB) because his real speed is not V(b) but V(b)-V(s).

Dear Alexander,

You have nearly the same theory as Azzam (you both use Eagle transformations: γ (or 1/γ) for length AND time), but not like him you say that the ground observer see the same as the moving one (he says that both observers see something different from the other). I like it a lot, but I am not sure there exist a resolution of the twin paradox. It seems to me there is no time dilation in the Haefele-Keating experiment (but it is another discussion: https://www.researchgate.net/post/Why_general_relativity_doesnt_match_with_positions_of_the_moon_between_0m_and_5000m).

To resume Azzam and you think the ground observer (if he is more static) will see a beam (in my example) going slower than (c or) any light mesured from a point to another in the ground referential. Am I right?

Dear Ni Ge

·I may be somewhere incorrectly translated my statements.

The earth moves in an absolute reference frame (ARF). If another reference frame moving in ARF with the same speed, but in the other direction, then in both reference frames the clock will have the same pace of time, although the relative speed of these systems can be non-zero.

The twin paradox does not exist In any theory with the absolute reference frame because of there is no symmetry properties of the reference frame. In particular, the pace of time in the reference frame calculated uniquely by the absolute speed of the system. Who moves faster, then his clock runs slower. The integrals of motion uniquely defined. Therefore the difference in the clock readings of the twins also clearly evaluated.

Therefore in your example, the answer to the question you posed, is such: you need to set the vector of absolute velocities of both of reference frames, and angles between the velocities and the motion vector of the light.

---

Уважаемый Ni Ge ,

·Возможно, я где-нибудь неправильно перевел свои формулировки.

Земля двигается в абсолютной системе отсчета (ARF). Если другая система отсчета движется в ARF с такой же скоростью, но в другом направлении, то в обеих системах отсчета часы будут иметь одинаковый темп времени, хотя относительная скорость этих систем может быть ненулевой.

В любой теории с абсолютной системой отсчета парадокса близнецов не существует, так здесь нет симметрии свойств систем отсчета.. В частности, темп времени в системе отсчета однозначно задан абсолютной скоростью движения этой системы. Кто быстрее движется, у того часы идут медленнее. Интегралы движения однозначно заданы. Поэтому разница в показаниях часов близнецов также однозначно вычисляется.

Чтобы в вашем примере ответить на поставленный вами вопрос, нужно задать вектора абсолютных скоростей обеих систем отсчета и  углы между этими скоростями и вектором движения света.

Dear Ni Ge,

At the first if you review these experiment, you will understand well these experiments are violated with the core of GR and then SRT. 

They all agreed completely with my theory. 

Now I understand why you say you feel there is no time dilation. In fact your point of view is explained in my theory.  How?

According to my theory I refuse the concept of the reciprocity principle or the Lorentz symmetry, that means when the observer on the moving train look at the clock  stationary on the ground, he will see it moves in a similar rate of his clock on the moving train. Since the clock on the moving train is considered as stationary relative to the observer on the moving train, and thus since the clock on the ground is moving in a similar rate of the clock on the moving train relative to the observer on the moving train. Thus clock on the ground is considered as stationary for the observer on the moving train, and thus the rest mass of the clock on the ground is also invariant. That means the events that is received now from the ground to the observer on the moving train are considered as happened in the past for the observer on the ground. This illustrates to you why the invariance of the space-time four-vector is associated with the fact that the speed of light is a constant. The invariance of the energy-momentum four-vector is associated with the fact that the rest mass of a particle is invariant under coordinate transformations. This illustrates to you how the spooky action and the event in past are happened in quantum theory which leading to faster than light, and how it is related to the vacuum energy and vacuum fluctuations where my transformations is vacuum energy dependent instead relative velocity. The relative velocity is required the reciprocity principle.

Dear Azzam,

I clarify: Not the relative velocity requires the principle of reciprocity, but the principle of relativity does so, requiring the same formulas of physical laws in each reference system.

---

Уважаемый Azzam,

Я уточняю: Не сама относительная скорость требует принципа взаимности, а принцип относительности, требующий одинаковых формул физических законов в каждой системе отсчета.

C. Ni Ge “Dear Allan, I see some mistakes in your paper:

First (eq 4) is not: (2DV^2)/(V^2-v^2) = 2D(1+(v/V)^2) but must be:

(2DV^2)/(V^2-v^2) = 2D(1+v^2/(V^2-v^2))”

A. I’m afraid I should tell it again, nobody reads papers carefully. Equation 4 is taken from the original Michelson paper where he described operation of his famous device (that is a citation from the original paper).

My congratulations to you! If you do not agree that equation, you can put your counterargument to the Michelson original paper.

C. Ni Ge “Dear Allan, and second (eq 12) the boat will not cover the distance s(AB) with the duration D(AB) because his real speed is not V(b) but V(b)-V(s).”

A. There is not such idea in the equation 12. The Full equation that uses both types of motion is equation 15. Equations 12-15 describe two physical processes one-by-one to make the explanation better understandable.

Both processes appear simultaneously in a real experiment.

My recommendation to you is this. Please, read papers carefully. Some papers have many ideas that you have not in your mind. Otherwise, your questions become unanswerable forever.

Dear Alexander,

I think there is no misinterpretation.

Following your theory:

If we admit in my example that the ground observer is ARF then he sees vc.

Right?

Dear Alexander Chepick.

The main goal of my theory is to reach to the unified theory and then quantization of gravity. I found quantization of gravity is not required a stress energy momentum tensor. It is required four vector energy-momentum tensor. That is impossible within the frame work of space-time continuum in SRT. Space-time continuum in SRT will lead to curved space-time in GR according to the equivalence principle. That is required to reinterpret the Lorentz transformation by another way by removing objectivity, and leads to Lorentz transformation to be vacuum energy dependent, and then by the equivalence principle we get four vector first rank tensor.

Dear Allan,

In (eq 15) D(up)=D(ab)+D(cb) is wrong. The right equation should be:

D(up)=D(ab)=D(ab)+D(cb)-D(bc) = s(ab)/v(b)-s(bc)/v(b)+s(cb)/v(b)=s(cb)/v(s)

C. Ni Ge “Dear Allan,

In (eq 15) D(up)=D(ab)+D(cb) is wrong. The right equation should be:

D(up)=D(ab)=D(ab)+D(cb)-D(bc) = s(ab)/v(b)-s(bc)/v(b)+s(cb)/v(b)=s(cb)/v(s)”

A. I have few questions to you regarding your “observations”

1. If upstream duration of motion of a boat is equal for S(cb)/V(s) then the process becomes independent of the boat speed VB and the path that it covers SAB. How does it possible?

2. The described process has two physical components. Those are motion of the boat and motion of the water stream. How does it possible to put three elements (D(ab)+D(cb)-D(bc)) in the equation that describes only two physical processes? Where does the third component come from?    

3. The original paper (from there that citation was taken) titled ‘The Epistemological concept of the True Space-Velocity Detector’ and was published in International Journal of Scientific and Research Publications (IJSRP), Volume 2, Issue 11 (November Edition).

Can you tell the editor of that journal that his journal makes publication of a paper with obviously wrong equations (calculations)?  

Dear Ni Ge this is a scientific forum. It is not a forum of nonsense to tell that everything is wrong around you except of your equations.

If you ask a question you should listen for answers and understand answers. Understanding of an answer means improvement of your point of view if you have not a stronger counterargument for the answer given to you.   

I regret to say that, many of modern physicists does not understand physics and try to hide that misunderstanding by equations that they do not understand either and this situation is the best example of it. I'm sorry again to say that.  

Dear Allan,

To answer you: in your example, the boat alone doesn't go s(ab) but s(af) in order to reach B (where F is a point rightside to B).