Watch any of the videos explaining relativity. They show light as particles emitted from a laser, facing the train (or Rocket) carriage ceiling, and when the train is stationery, the light bounces of a mirror on the ceiling back to the floor, directly an up/down motion. But then they say when the train is moving, the light now is shown as a series or diagonal paths. Then they call on Pythagoras theory of geometry to prove that the light has travelled a longer distance but still taken the same time as when it was stationery. Presently they go on to conclude that time was different for the person in the carriage compared to the guy on the station. This is flawed logic. Simply because they are using two different measurement systems that are not talking the same language. It’s like saying that I measured it to be 4 oranges, minus your measurement of 7 bananas, and I can come up with a sensible answer.

If the guy in the moving carriage looked outside, he would know he was moving, and if he was going to use his measurements in the stationary guys math’s equation, then they both MUST agree on what is common. They both cannot have x=zero. ( Relativists say that the stationary guy claims he is at the zero position, whereas the moving guy, who "thinks" he is stationary, is also going to say he is at the zero position.)

**Screen captures from two different online lectures on Special Relativity showing that the origin for both the moving frame and the stationary frame are both set as zero, even though the two frames are in different locations in space! The red comments are mine. The rest of the image is untouched.**

Actually, they could use their own personal zero, in their own experiments, but only if their equations related to their own reference frame. The minute you want to work with a single equation, combining information from different frames, then all measurements need to have a constant base for time, and origin. Then you can correctly work out mathematically, everyone’s current, and projected location, velocities and elapsed times. Otherwise you end up with the two origins both taking the exact same value, (zero) yet clearly NOT being in the same location. This is exactly like saying, we have two versions, only one is true, the other is a lie, but we will combine both stories into a book of fact, without identifying which story is untrue.

If the guy in the carriage still can’t see that he is moving, then conversely you must say, in order to have equality between the two inertial reference frames, that the stationery guy either cant see the moving guy’s carriage, of it he can, ALL he can see is a carriage moving past at velocity v, and in the direction along the x axis. He can’t know what going on in the mind of the person in the carriage, and know he is performing some experiment, and he is using his own unique measuring system. So he can’t devise any equation that mixes up two foreign measurement systems.

If we get the moving guy to look out the window, and then correctly use the same reference standards that the stationary guy is using, then there is no SR. There are no contradictions between either observer that require bizarre formulas and result in irrational conclusions about time dilating, length contracting or mass increasing, and the world becomes a sane place once more.

One guy says “I think I’m not moving” the other guy says “Yes you are”. It matters not to real science what they “think” is happening. They both can’t be correct. In order for any sense to come out of any measurements, they first have to agree on the basic conditions present, and use the same measurement units. Otherwise you will certainly end up with nonsense.

A person on train with ball…throwing it towards the end wall of the carriage, train going 40, ball going 10, so from my perspective on platform the ball is going 50…. This is totally misleading. And is the root cause of all confusion about relativity

In fact, from the stationery platform, I can also see the ball going 10 kilometers an hour, and I see that it’s inside a train that going 40 kilometers an hour. I am wrong to say that the ball is moving at 50 kph. What is happening is that the train carriage is comprised of steel, glass and plastic. In reality, the moving carriage is comprised of even more, it’s got seats, luggage and a person and a laser and a mirror. All of this matter and any associated energy (laser beam) is integral with the carriage and is moving as one object at 40kph.

But this is the main argument for relativity. It is wrong because the ball is absolutely only moving at 10 kph AND it in a train that is moving at 40kph. You can’t add the two together. If the ball is bouncing off the far wall of the train, it is obeying the laws of physics that apply to a ball moving at exactly 10kph. It does not obey the laws of physics that apply to a ball moving at 50kph. Yet relativity uses the 50kph figure anyway, even though it’s clearly wrong. If you throw the ball out the window, then it’s going to be travelling at 50kph sure, because it is now interacting with the platform. Before it was only reacting to the wall of the train.

If a boy with a yoyo in a train speeds past an observer on the station, the man sees the train moving at 40, he sees the yoyo moving up and down, vertically. Einstein twists this obvious fact to say that the path of the yoyo is in some sort of parabolic trajectory. But just watch the yoyo.. it’s ONLY moving directly up and back down within the moving train. In order to “see” the yoyo move in the complex path required by the theory of Special Relativity, the stationary observer must only “see” the yoyo all by itself, without the boy, the string or the train. Just a yoyo moving up and down and sideways at 40kph.

This is what the relativists do, the take only the yoyo into the equation, and come up with some impossible combined motion of train and yoyo, then use the motion of the yoyo ONLY in the vertical direction, as seen by the guy on the train, who has not discovered that the train has windows! He can look outside, and know that he is moving. These two observer geniuses, could compare notes after the event, and both agree on which way to consider the path of the yoyo, from the boy’s perspective, or in relation to the ground, ignoring the train. Whatever they agree on, they would always get the same answers. As long as they settle on one measuring system to do their comparisons.

Saying that the guy on the moving train does not know that he is moving is not science. If you claim that, then you have to also say that the stationary guy can likewise only see physics in his own frame of reference, he can’t look inside the train to see what’s going on in there. Physics must work equally for both observers, so they both can see each others origin points, and they both will always agree on what is happening, no discrepancies will exist when they do their calculations given all the information.

It seems from comments I receive, that I need to elaborate on this idea of the correct use of “reference frames” which is just simply what something looks like from different points of view.

Do you really think that the universe is keeping track of who is looking at what, and will change the laws of physics for each observer based on that observers personal viewpoint? Such a point of view probably will be misleading as a single observer does not possess all the information required about an event in order to make a correct assessment of what’s really going on.

For example, common illustrations about Special Relativity employ the use of a light clock on a moving train carriage, and compare the points of view of the observer on the carriage, and another observer who is stationary on the train station platform.

Two viewpoints are proposed that supposedly effect the actual photons of light. Right here, you can see that a viewpoint should not be able to effect what a photon of light is actually doing. The photon is certainly doing something, but it surely is not doing two different things.

**Image 1 is what the guy on the rocket who "thinks he is stationary" observes. Image 2 is what the stationary observer sees. It represents both the photon and the rocket's motion combined. The differences result because of the location of the observer. Yet only ONE CAN BE TRUE. If I did another animation showing from the PHOTON'S frame of reference, I would have to show the ROCKET doing the zig-zag motion! The rocket does not zig-zag for anyone! Yet a frame of reference for the photon, who "thinks he is stationary", is valid. But the result of a zig-zag rocket trajectory would be impossible. **

What is the correct interpretation of what that photon is doing? There will not be two correct answers to this question, despite the popularity of SR and even Quantum Physics. If you claim that you can be in two places at the same time, you have made a mistake. Period.

Relativists say that for the man on the carriage, the photons emitted from the source in his light clock are moving up and down, absolutely vertically. However, the claim is made that the stationary observer sees something else. Does he really? Does he really see the actual photons moving at an angle, thereby travelling in a longer path than the actual length of the light clock? (say the length of the light clock is 2 meters tall.) The photons in the light clock travel back and forth, up and down, inside a vertical tube that is 2 meters long. Have the photons moved only 2 meters, but also moved 8 meters in the diagonal direction? The answer lies in the way in which you want to measure the distance the photons have travelled.

First, let’s consider a light clock on its own. Nothing but a light clock. Our clock must have a light source for the generation of a stream of photons. It must also have mirror fixed 2 meters away, and to achieve this we will include a clear glass tube as a supporting structure, also we need a sensor beside the light source to record the arrival of the photons. That’s out complete light clock. If we watch the motion of the photons, they are directed by the light source, in the direction of the mirror at the precise angle that allows the photon to return to the receiver. If the photon strikes the mirror at the wrong angle, the clock cannot function.

Now we pose a question, “If we pick up this clock, and rotate it away from vertical, will the photons still reach to the mirror, and will the clock continue to function?” The obvious answer is yes. Why? It’s simply because the clock is behaving as a single object of several parts. It cannot matter to a single object which way its facing, the object still does what it always does. The individual components of the clock, the mirror, light source, receiver and glass tube are acting as one. Necessarily, so too are the photons inside this clock. Their motion is in relationship with the light source and mirror. The photons always go where the clock goes, they always are going toward the mirror is, they always stay inside the glass tube. (could be an opaque tube too) The photons don’t have knowledge of which direction the clock is facing. They always and can only go in the direction the light source is aiming them.

The next question is: “Now grab the light clock and run down the street with it. Is the thing still functioning? The answer is YES. How about if you put it in an airplane? Still work? Yes.

What about if it was going 30,000kph in outer space? Still work? Yes. How about we get it to do barrel rolls whilst doing 30000kph in space. Still working, Yes.

#### The light clock and the universe does not care what we do with it, as long as the clock remains as a single unit.

**Photons inside the clock only move between the source and mirror, no where else**

**This understanding of a light clock, is something we must burn into our minds right now, as what’s coming next will go directly against popular Physics as currently taught.**Let’s put the clock back on that moving carriage. Relativists will now claim that the photons are actually travelling a longer distance than 2 meters, as measured by the stationary observer. This is clearly a mistake, an error of logic. The stationary observer, if he takes into consideration all of the facts, can only have one correct conclusion. Namely that he saw a light clock on a carriage moving past him at considerable speed. He also observed what the clock was doing. He saw the clock functioning. Photons were moving from a light source and striking a mirror 2 meters away, at the top of the clock.

The stationary observer would not have any reason to “plot the motion of the photon against the background of the railway station” without reference to the clock or carriage’s motion. (he can, but it proves nothing useful here) It is as useful in this thought experiment as if he placed a red spot of paint on one of the carriage wheels rim, and plotted it’s motion as the carriage want past. That makes a cool series of connected cycloidal arcs. But it is not much use, nor is claiming that the photon went diagonally through space on its own. The cycloid is no use to us, nor is the diagonal imaginary path drawn by relativists. It clearly does not represent what the photon was doing, or how far it really travelled.

If I hop on a bus and go for a ride. I moved nowhere, no part of my body performed motion actions. Yet I ended up in another part of town! How is that possible, Well Relativists, I can explain this problem to you. Listen up. THE BUS DID THE MOVING! It is a lie by ommission to claim that I travelled to the other side of town, wihtout mentioning that I was a passenger on a bus. The bit of important info here is the bus. Without that vital bit of information, people will incorrectly conclude that I have just walked clear across town. In the real world, I sat my fat arse on the bus seat and snoozed the whole trip. There is a world of difference here, just because of missing information.

Likewise the photon did not move to a new place down the rail track, the train moved! The photon just quietly did its little trip up to its mirror, a 2 meter trip. Meanwhile someone moved the whole clock and train somewhere, But the photon did not care or even know.

Therefore if you want to be serious about Physics, then you cannot claim that the 2 meter trip of the photon has become a longer trip at the same time just because you changed viewing perspectives.

If I look at a one meter ruler square on, (its on the floor, I’m standing above it) it looks about 1 meter. If I look at it end on, from the floor level, it looks like it is now only a few Centimeters long. Relativists would claim that the ruler really, truly has changed in length from my reference frame. Like the guy on the rocket who "thinks" he is not moving, the guy looking at the ruler end on, "thinks" the object's aparent "length" is along his x axis. He is ignorant of the fact that the ruler is actually facing more along the z axis. So he measures a 1 meter ruler as being 100mm because he does not posess all the facts.

The trick or hole that has swallowed all of Relativistic Physics is that in this illustration, the stationary observer has not taken all of the facts into consideration. Therefore the whole derivation of the Lorentz Transformation is in error and must be discarded. This means of course that Special Relativity is also hopelessly flawed.

One can’t begin to work through an Equation that relies on a comparison of a 2 meter distance with a distance that has absolutely no bearing on that 2 meter measurement. May as well toss in the length of the train as well, and the length of the man’s mustache. Makes about as much sense.

As I write this, I can see opportunity for criticism. So I need to address this.

To make things easier to imagine, say we swap a photon for a ball. It is actually totally true that a ball shot from a vertical facing cannon, which is mounted on a moving carriage, will NOT just go straight up and back down. The ball shot from the moving cannon will prescribe a nice parabolic arc.

A ball shot from a vertical facing but stationery cannon will go straight up and straight down.

So although a camera mounted on the moving carriage, will record only a straight up and down motion of the ball, a stationary camera will record the parabola.

What I am getting at, is that only ONE of these conditions is true. As the ball on the moving carriage already possesses a trajectory before it has been fired from the cannon, the resulting trajectory is a combination of its initial horizontal trajectory PLUS its new vertical trajectory. Resulting in the parabola.

The purely straight up and down video taken by the camera that is mounted on the moving carriage is not representative of reality. It’s a subset of reality.

So in my example about the light clock’s path above, it is technically correct to say that the photon’s trajectory IS actually along the angled path. But as this is the true condition, then we can NOT use the measurement taken by the guy on the rocket, the simple straight up and down distance of the photon. What I’m saying then, is that you would be incorrect to try to use both measurements, only one is relevant. Take you pick, you can have one or the other, but don’t mix them together in one scenario.

One question to consider relates to what a photon does after it is created by a light source.

If I stand still and toss a ball into the air, it falls back to me. If I toss it into the air, and run away. The ball falls back to the spot where I was originally. The cares not what I do after I throw it. The trajectory of the ball has been set, and what I do after plays no further part on what the ball does.

Same with a photon, but it’s harder to visualize. I shoot a photon vertically, then move the photon gun away, the photon is unaffected. But what happens to a ball that I throw when I am running? The ball’s trajectory is a combination of my running speed and direction PLUS the direction and speed that I throw it. How about a photon? Does a photon fired from a photon gun that is on a moving rocket, possess a combined trajectory of the rockets speed and direction PLUS the direction and speed of light? If a photon is anything like a ball, then yes, the photon would possess a trajectory that is the combination of the rocket’s velocity and light speed, in a direction that is also a combination. But a photon is nothing like a ball. Clever people would realise what would really happen to the photon in the light clock experiment, if the ship is travel ing at near light speed. The photon would leave the emitter or source vertically, then head up vertically (ship moving horizontally) but before the photon got to the mirror height, the ship had moved away, and the photon would miss the mirror totally, ending the usefulness of the clock. The photon never can travel on a trajectory that is a combination of its own vertical trajectory, PLUS the trajectory of the ship. It's not a ball. No one could ever see the photon tracing out the diagonal path that is the main feature of Einsteins theory. The photon will NEVER take that diagonal path and still hit the mirror. No observer in any frame can see the photon move along with the ship. So there is no basis for the geometry of the Lorentz transformation.

**The whole thing condenses down to one simple fact. You can NOT use measurements from two different "frames of reference" unless both observers possess ALL of the facts about their suitation. Both observers MUST be in agreement about reality before they try to compare their result of their individual experiments.**

**My focus in this example is absolutely NOT about if the path of the photon is vertical or at a some longer angle. It is ONLY about the fact that you can't have both. If both observers can't agree on ONE reality, then one of them MUST be missing some critical information, so his measurments will therefore be wrong.**