I read a recent article in the globe and mail about Einstein theory of motion. it suggested a comparison between a observer's onboard and offboard a moving object, in this case a train. They hinted a very similar model to a ball bouncing on a moving train in my other studies. onboard the train they represent light as traveling a straight perpendicular vertical up and down motion. relative to an observer onboard, the light was required to travel no additional horizontal motion. Then they described how an observer offboard the train would observe the same motion, but also spread across the horizontal distance covered by the motion of the train. I hope i described the example that was printed well enough. I have a question, mostly to ask if this theory still holds true, and is this still an accurate model... (long question ahead) I believe this description is very similar to a ball bouncing model we learned about in physics. while a ball bouncing on a train, is not dealing with the nature of light, i saw a few perplexing similarities. As a ball was described, this example deduces using the similar principles. how is it a ball, who's actual speed is not fixed by a constant, be accurately compared against a constant such as light. in order for an observer onboard to bounce a ball up and down (it could be described) as having no additional horizontal motion. and the observer onboard would reflect that it traveled a shorter distance... But how would this be in any way plausible if the ball was never boosted by the horizontal motion of the train? Oh and later on in the article it clearly states that motion can neither slow or boost the speed of light. as per Einsteins very words. Thus i consider it highly improbable that light would take less time to travel, for an observer onboard. because the mere motion alone would not increase the horizontal motion without reducing the amount of motion capable of also exerting vertical... regardless no matter what fraction of time is experienced onboard the train. it is utterly strange for me to conceive that the train would not similarly move forward in the time between up and down intervals, regardless of what smaller accountable time is experienced onboard.