[afksf1944 (OP)]

 Consider a light source fixed in space XYZ. An observer facing plane y in z direction can only see photons from y plane moving in the direction x and y. Other planes are not visible and only the light speed of y plane in the direction of x or y can be measured at right angle to y and x. This of course will be constant (c1) for the medium used. If the observer or the light source moved at any speed towards or away from each other, no relative speed is detected due to the fact that the movement is perpendicular to y plane and the photons in y plane moving in the direction x and y.

[Kryptid]

If the observer or the light source moved at any speed towards or away from each other, no relative speed is detected due to the fact that the movement is perpendicular to y plane and the photons in y plane moving in the direction x and y.

Movement can be detected by measuring the red shift (or blue shift) of the light.

[afksf1944 (OP)]

Thanks for the much appreciated comments made.
What I actually meant by stating that the photons towards the observer (in the Z direction) are not detected is as follows:-
The photons from the light source in the z direction hitting the observer at c1 speed and reflected back at c1 speed when the observer is not moving relative to the light source. When the observer moves at a speed v  (say towards the light source) the photons will hit him at a speed c1+v and will be reflected back at a speed c1 +v-v (which is c1).
So in this case the photons relativity is not detected.

[Halc]

Consider a light source fixed in space XYZ.

This already assumes a frame.  A light source that is stationary in one frame (fixed in space at coordinates XYZ) would be moving in any other frame. Just pointing it out.

An observer facing plane y in z direction

That would be plane x,y.  Just y defines one axis, a line.

[Said observer] can only see photons from y plane moving in the direction x and y.

He can actually only see photons that have moved directly towards him.  Any other photons will miss the observer and not be observed. If he's facing in the z direction and has a less than 180° field of view, then all observed photons will have some sort of -z component to their trajectories.

Other planes are not visible and only the light speed of y plane

Planes are abstractions and are not visible. Real things are visible if light travels from them to the observer.  Not trying to be pedantic, but you're not making a lot of sense with these assertions, so I'm trying to make some kind of coherent sense of it.

If the observer or the light source moved at any speed towards or away from each other, no relative speed is detected due to the fact that the movement is perpendicular to y plane and the photons in y plane moving in the direction x and y.

One cannot directly detect the speed of a photon. It is simply detected as an 'I saw it' event, with no way to measure the distance from which it came or how long it took to get here.
Any attempt at speed measurement requires some kind of known information about the distance to the source of the light, and then a clock to measure a duration of some kind.

If the proper frequency of the light source is known, movement of said source can be measured via the red-shift of the light (as Kryptid has pointed out), but in general, a red photon from a stationary source is indistinguishable from a blue photon from a sufficiently receding source.

What I actually meant by stating that the photons towards the observer (in the Z direction) are not detected is as follows:-
The photons from the light source in the z direction hitting the observer at c1 speed and reflected back at c1 speed when the observer is not moving relative to the light source.

If a photon is reflected, then it is not observed.  The observer might as well not be there.
If the photon is moving in the z direction from a point in space of say d light seconds away from the point in space where it is observed, then it will take d seconds to get there, in the coordinate system where the locations along z are defined.  This is completely independent of the motion of either the source of the light or the observer/detector.

When the observer moves at a speed v  (say towards the light source) the photons will hit him at a speed c1+v, and will be reflected back at a speed c1 +v-v (which is c1).

In a coordinate system where the observer is moving, light still travels at speed c in both directions. It cannot change speed due to reflection by say a moving mirror.  It will change energy and frequency (both frame dependent properties) due to such reflection, but not speed since light speed is constant in any frame.

So in this case the photons relativity is not detected.

It was not detected because it was reflected.  Detection requires that the photon be absorbed by whatever detects it.  You seem to refer to something called 'the photon's relativity'.  I have no idea what you think that is. Perhaps you could clarify.

You seem to be talking about two different things: Speeds of this and that, but also reflection and detection and/or lack of it.

[jeffreyH]

Thanks for the much appreciated comments made.
What I actually meant by stating that the photons towards the observer (in the Z direction) are not detected is as follows:-
The photons from the light source in the z direction hitting the observer at c1 speed and reflected back at c1 speed when the observer is not moving relative to the light source. When the observer moves at a speed v  (say towards the light source) the photons will hit him at a speed c1+v and will be reflected back at a speed c1 +v-v (which is c1).
So in this case the photons relativity is not detected.

You need to use the velocity addition formula. Or maybe you just don't know about it, being as uneducated as you are.

If you disagree and say you are educated then I may just start laughing uncontrollably. You wouldn't want me to do that now would you?

[afksf1944 (OP)]

This is the new theories section where you can be wrong or right when describing your view.
Many scientists in the past made wrong statements or so was thought. Some were wrong and some were right.
when announcing your views, they sometimes cannot be believed and sometimes can be against known ideas or so called existing scientific facts. Now that is a bit of education for some.

[Kryptid]

Now that is a bit of education for some.

I'm pretty sure everyone here already knew that.

It isn't evidence that you are correct.

[Bored chemist]

This is the new theories section where you can be wrong or right when describing your view.

Yes, and you are entitled to your own opinion.
But (famously) you are not entitled to your own facts.