3 ms·

Well like the airplane on the conveyor belt thing, there really is a right answer to this and you don't have it. This is a similar explanation to one of the com

Well like the airplane on the conveyor belt thing, there really is a right answer to this and you don't have it. This is a similar explanation to one of the comments on the blog: imagine one section of ground followed by one section of conveyor belt. Two people going exactly the same speed walk along the ground section and one stops just before the conveyor belt and one stops on the conveyor belt. They both stop for the same time. When they resume walking the one who stopped on the conveyor belt is ahead. No matter how many section of belt and ground follow this, the one behind will never catch up.

ars 18y ago
No, that's not correct. You forgot that they both have to get off the conveyor belt at some point. The guy who got on first will then walk slowly, and the guy who got on second meanwhile will be both walking and being pulled forward by the conveyor belt, while the first guy is walking slowly. This will catch him up to the first guy. And if you tell me that the first guy is already walking so of course he's ahead, then you forgot that, for both of them to stop at the same time, and yet one be on the belt and one on the ground, the first guy must have had a head start. Better have two belts, one placed one meter ahead of the other. So, one guy will be walking for that meter, while the other will be riding the belt and walking, and both will reach the end at exactly the same time.
- greendestiny 18y ago
  It's confusing alright. When the guy in the lead gets off the conveyor belt the distance between them will close. But the second guy won't catch up. The distance between them will vary according to speed but the time between them will stay the same.
  - ars 18y ago
    I concede. You are right, it's better to pause on the belt. I thought about it all night, using edge cases, like a really slow walker, fast belt, etc.

ars 18y ago

No, that's not correct. You forgot that they both have to get off the conveyor belt at some point. The guy who got on first will then walk slowly, and the guy who got on second meanwhile will be both walking and being pulled forward by the conveyor belt, while the first guy is walking slowly. This will catch him up to the first guy. And if you tell me that the first guy is already walking so of course he's ahead, then you forgot that, for both of them to stop at the same time, and yet one be on the belt and one on the ground, the first guy must have had a head start. Better have two belts, one placed one meter ahead of the other. So, one guy will be walking for that meter, while the other will be riding the belt and walking, and both will reach the end at exactly the same time.

greendestiny 18y ago
It's confusing alright. When the guy in the lead gets off the conveyor belt the distance between them will close. But the second guy won't catch up. The distance between them will vary according to speed but the time between them will stay the same.
- ars 18y ago
  I concede. You are right, it's better to pause on the belt. I thought about it all night, using edge cases, like a really slow walker, fast belt, etc.