Regarding the apparent non-c speed of light seen by someone standing on the planet's surface. That's explained by special relativity. If you doubt that explanation then you have to derive the result and show that it contradicts any other part of accepted theory, or any valid experiment.
However you can avoid that difficulty entirely. Use a non-rotating planet, and point O is attached to a plane flying around the stationary planet. Furthermore, the plane can stop moving when it transmits, and stop again when it receives. It only flys while it's waiting for the light to return. Sagnac gives the same result, but without any relativistic concerns.
I've learnt a lot talking to you HXW, but I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall. You've clearly made a big investment in this idea so are reluctant to consider possible problems with it. I think you would do yourself a big favor by calculating the expected results of these experiments yourself, without prejudice, and without depending on the opinions of others. People, including professors often say things without thinking, because they're more interested in appearing to know the answer than actually being correct. After a rigorous analysis you'll identify exactly what's supposed to happen. If you find a genuine new discovery you'll know exactly why it is. Then you can write a paper that will be easily accepted by a mainstream journal.
