The train travelling past  at 'c' mind experiment.


A train is going past a station at hyper speed (almost 'c'). There is an observer sitting in the train who (as observers do) observes an object travel at 'c' (or as a magical beam of light) vertically from the floor to the ceiling. Another observer is sitting on the platform and watching the train as it passes by (The theoretical train has no side to obstruct his view).

At the exact moment that the object in the train begins to move from the floor to the ceiling at 'c' the platform lounger's view is at ninety degrees to the track. It is then supposed that he then observes the motion of the object at an angle from the vertical relative to his fixed line of vision, and the length of that observance is now longer to him than the length observed by the passenger in the carriage. This is supposed to show time dilation because the object still moved at 'c' even thought the train was traveling at almost 'c' and because the observer saw a longer line of observance, then his time must have dilated with reference to that of the observer in the train in order for him to have still observed the object to travel at 'c'.

Unfortunately this declares that the train isn't really there or it's speed will need to be 'relativized' by his time dilation as well. The problem here is that STR only applies to light and not trains so I guess we can ignore the light reflecting from the train. If you have trouble with this conceptual argumentum then please resign your tenure forthwith. Note: ---a little soliloquy: Please don't presume to tell the relativists that this relationship would be also the same for a dropped object say, at any real world relative train speed. You know; where's the sensationalism in that? We might then ask: Isn't such time dilation supposed to be only relative to travel at close to the speed of light? Duh!

Answer. STR doesn't apply to anything other than the observed speed of light and that includes dropped objects. Unfortunately for them this doesn't apply to sweeping torch beams, waving sparklers or magical observances at instantaneous speeds! Such relativity can only be analyzed between directly emitted and received light from moving light sources which applies to all visible reflections from objects in other relatively moving IRFs.

Because you can't observe photons; then in the train experiment we are observing photons being emitted from a moving object travelling vertically and sideways at 'c' or almost the speed of light in the latter case and the speed of light back to the observer hasn't been taken into account at all. The experiment is fraudulent.

 This is supposed to be special relativity (STR) which Einstein knew was just as subjective as the Galilean transformation is.

Now in order to see this as some sort of proof for time dilation we are forced to consider that the platform observer is magical and he can see instantly without the requirement for the light from the observance to travel back to him at 'c'. Unfortunately for the expectation of the outcome of this experiment to be in favor of the relativists; if he was a normal observer in a normal world he would see exactly the same length of the event over the same time period as the duration of the event observed in the reality experienced by the observer on board the train. It would just be angled that's all! He would get to see the rest of the event as a continuance because of the extra time taken for the observance to travel to him at 'c'!

As is the case in all these 'exercises' in magic -including the train and tunnel- mind? experiment. Such requirements as instantaneous-observability or instantaneity-of-action are the impossibilities required to make all this relativity nonsense seem possible and therefore real. That my friends; is a serious sleight of hand fraud being perpetrated by science in the name of dogma.

Even if the platform observer is proposed to be 'magical' and able to see instantaneously in order to enable this supposed time dilation to be (by the same reason) magically observed; then it stands that everyone who uses this example as proof for S-relativity also forgets (or have been born with minds that can't grasp simple concepts*) that the observer is actually watching the event relative to the whole moving train carriage, and in that case if he turns his eyes to watch the whole event go by (which he must do), he will only observe the object to MOVE VERTICALLY RELATIVE TO THE CARRIAGE AND just as importantly, EXACTLY THE SAME VERTICAL DISTANCE as the observer in the carriage sees so the observance is only subjectively transformative and not real. There is no gamma or Lorentz factor (relativistic time adjustment) required here only observational inertial reference frame (IRF) relativity applicable to any speed.

Go figure! Perhaps you might be better occupied trying to figure what the platform lounger would see if the passenger shined a torch at him, or contemplate the meaning of infinity or, Zeno's paradox, or whether there is anything actually existing behind objects you can't see through, or perhaps even your navel or some such!

*Not to disparage other brilliant mental faculties they might seem to posses.


The actual analysis of this mind gamer experiment as proposed by relativists is at about the conceptual level of a preschooler. That's because they miss much and assume too much.

The fact is that with regard to a train moving past the observer on the platform travelling at the speed of light -with a stationary light source on board which is soon going to be moved vertically at the speed of light- we need to set the parameters of the experiment such that all truisms -and not just the ones fraudulently supporting the doctrine being declared- need to be addressed.

Truism 1/ An observer moving along outside but in synch with the train is an illegal and stupid happenstance. This is because he would be moving in the same IRF as the train. Duh!

Truism 2/ The inertial reference frames are restricted to constant linear motion with respect to each other.


In the experiment the light is being viewed from right angles to the travel of the train. This means that the URF has little relevance so what we essentially have is Galilean transformation pure and simple. The train could be stopped and the station regarded as moving in that case.


If you wish to make this experiment actually relativistic and not Galilean and you think about analyzing this from the point of view of the train approaching and leaving as it passes by; then you will find no necessity for any time adjustment relative to the platform observer if he is fixed to the URF; which is implied. This is because all light will travel to him at 'c' regardless of the train's motion. The only relativity actually applies to the observer in the train  and there is even a big problem with that as we shall soon see.

If the light source begins to move -without acceleration- at the speed of light in the vertical direction just before the train arrives and then finishes its motion at the same distance past the station then there is no difference in the expected expansion and similar contraction required than when it was stationary; there is none! That vertical motion just allows the Galilean transformation to become more graphic for the pre school level mind to analyse and still come away with faulty conclusions of reality as we would expect of a preschooler in general.

So in this experiment we have a couple of stupid conceptions to begin with and the first one was; that we need to have a vertical motion at all in order to require an expansion or contraction of time. There is none for the platform observer in any case!

The second stupidity comes to the fore when we only analyse the subject as though the train never approaches the station but just goes away and we analyze the whole event as though a (really non existent) time contraction only is required. This is likely because some even subjectively introduce an observer who is moving in the same IRF and then even more stupidly declaring that he will observe a contraction only. This is in direct defiance of the first truism. Such an observer will only see a vertical motion of the light similar to the observer on the train.

The main problem though; is with the thoughtless analysis of the true result which really shows that the expected time expansion upon approach and contraction upon departure -or any time adjustment for that matter- are only subjective in any case because otherwise we have to consider the absurdity of the existence of an infinite number of overlapping time zones throughout the universe which couldn't be escaped from -even by light- and we don't notice any such affect on light travelling from far distant galaxies!

One objection and a hint of a more serious problem though; is that if we have two light sources on the train and one is pointing behind and one is approaching then in that case our watch might seem to need to slow down or speed up depending on which source we happed to glance at!

Now we arrive at the crux of the matter: When we analyse the situation when light sources are approaching or going away we must then take the URF into consideration in order to keep the factuality of URF light speed constancy.

If then the train with a light source is approaching the platform at almost the speed of light say then the Galilean transformation is abrogated and the proposed relativistic time adjustment is now restricted to the train observer only; because the observer on the platform -who we will consider to be fixed with respect to the URF- always sees light approaching and leaving at 'c' without any time adjustment required.

However the observer in the train would see the light shining away from him in the forward direction at only 1m/s say. So that travelling observer's time and watch would have to be slowed down such that it moved just one three hundred millionth of a second when one second had ticked over on the platform observers watch. They would both then see the light travel at  'c'

Unfortunately for the whole theory--- if the reverse is the case and a light is shone from the platform to the train. Then the train observer would see it coming almost twice as fast unless his time and watch were -in this situation- sped up to compensate.

Can you see the slight problem we have here? Yes the massive time adjustments for the observer on the train are dependant upon which light he is observing at any given moment. Laugh chortle chuck chunder etc.

That's the same contradiction we see in the 'Twins in space' paradox on the home page. I think it's past time to throw this ludicrous, absurd, asinine, insane drivel called special relativity into the WPB don't you?

I know I said this wasn't a relativity bashing website. Sorry I wasn't referring to bashing this idea because there is no relativity in STR. It is a zero sum game!

It would be foolish indeed to be tempted to subtract the half expansion in one case from the massive dilation in the other and reach a conclusion that there is still a resultant dilation. This is because such a proposed resultant is still not applicable to both cases. It all remains dependent upon which light the observer decides to observe at any given time.





Special relativity is a case by case specific subjectivism relied upon to keep relative IRF 'c' constancy true by sleight of hand. If  such constancy is untrue -which such obvious subjective destruction of sane reality declares- and light is actually speed anisotropic with respect to URF speed constancy; then we no longer require STR whatsoever. Yippee!

Also please tell me: Who said that actions being caused by the laws of physics were required to be the same in every inertial reference frame of motion? Where did that straight out assumption come from? Oh because you observe -with your pre school like simplicity- the Galilean transformation at low velocities and then you extrapolate that to also apply to hyper velocities? How cute! Kitchy coo!

The logical default with 'the train going through the tunnel' mind experiment is the stupidly applied 'instantaneity' of action. That's as far as I need to go into that insane drivel.


Look; call me nasty if you like but it's way past time to be 'pussy footing' around with this delusion. After all it's been around for more than a century and I would have thought our knowledge and thought processes might have evolved somewhat by now. Do we need to wait around for the next five hundred year leap or what?


Just in case you're a bit slow and need more: An example of a similar kind of mind game technique which abuses logic and tries to show time variation with different frames of reference would be akin to two friends synchronizing accurate stop watches, and moving apart by a significant distance and travelling at unknown speeds. One is to fire a shot and the other will stop his stop-watch and fire an answering shot at exactly the same time. His other friend will then stop his watch when he hears that shot. They then get back together and compare watches and then stupidly conclude that because each heard their friend's shots with different time delays; that somehow they must exist in a different time frame and that one of their watches must have slowed down. That would be the case if we stupidly adjusted the speed of sound to compensate for each reference frame. That would be super-special-relativity right here in our back yards. Wouldn't that be fun?

All I say is that regardless of the time delayed observance of universal events; that simultaneous events are and always will be, exactly that, and that light simply brings a delayed observance. I.e. time skew and relative motion only causes subjective observational relativity. Relativity is observational only because of the dualistic philosophical relativities peculiar to the observers in their relative reference frames, which all ends in the aforementioned zero sum game.

The only serious conclusion that is able to be drawn by true reason with special appellation to Occam's razor is that light speed must therefore be anisotropic but restricted to being a universal reference frame constant. We are just having trouble measuring the speed differences and that is the proverbial log over which science has stumbled.

For some unlettered person like me -for which I am eternally grateful- to take on Einstein might seem to be rather impertinent. But perhaps I can ameliorate this impertinence by pointing out that there are many other eminent dissenters out there in sanity land, and Einstein has himself already refuted his own assertion regarding 'c' being an 'own reference frame' constant within his other space time continuum machinations in G-rel. It may be of interest to note that he has also been recently proven wrong with his theory of Brownian motion. Note: In my assertion that 'c' is not an IRF constant (rather anisotropic), I must point out that in a vacuum it would be considered to always maintain its original emission velocity at URF 'c' but even that constancy is really a gravity-flux-determined universal-reference-frame constant with motion inertial reference frame variability. That's another subject and for most intents and purposes we can consider 'c' to be a constant velocity in the URF.

Now if we were to contemplate the case where 'c' is somehow concluded to not be an empirical universal reference frame constant after all but just a local reference frame constant then we have other problems. Yes to the astute: WE HAVE ARRIVED BACK AT THE TIME WARP PROBLEM THAT WE BEGAN WITH. This could all be shown on a circular flow chart; one which we have just seen only becomes a little more complex if we attempt to conjoin the relativities but still circular and fully refuted as reality. Applied relativity is nonsense! I only concur with Einstein in URF 'c' constancy.