Einstein’s train-lightening thought experiment contains only inertial motion so SR says we can ascribe relative motion and relative rest to either reference frame. Although it is not stated in the description, we naturally ascribe motion to the train and rest to the landscape. But we are free to do the opposite.
Picture the train at rest while the landscape — including the tracks and the standing observer — rush past the train to its rear. The lightening strikes fore and aft in such a way that the conductor, being at the midpoint of the strikes, sees them as simultaneous. The standing observer, rushing toward the train’s rear, sees the rear strike first because of the shorter distance the flash must cover to reach him.
It seems that we have violated a major tenet of SR. We have caused two different physical outcomes merely by arbitrarily assigning motion and rest in accordance with SR. If the train is moving relative to the landscape the conductor sees the front flash first. If the train is at rest relative to a moving landscape the conductor sees the flashes as simultaneous. Two different physical results depending only on how we arbitrarily assign movement and rest to the two reference frames.
What is wrong with this argument?