3 ms·

You've basically repeated what I said. My point is that reducing your exposure time is basically altering a different variable in the equation. If you control

You've basically repeated what I said. My point is that reducing your exposure time is basically altering a different variable in the equation. If you control that variable by not running to a place where the exposure to rain stops, it becomes clear that by running you will get more wet than if you were simply walking. And yes I understand that practically, running to a dry spot is the whole point.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
Nope, I still don't understand you. One more try, then I'll give up. You originally said: In other words, running in the rain gets you more wet, given that all running is doing is reducing your exposure time. The running is reducing your exposure time, and that reduce is enough to get you less wet. Hence your claim that it gets you more wet is nonsense. What have I misunderstood?
- run4yourlives 17y ago
  The running is reducing your exposure time, and that reduce is enough to get you less wet. Um, the "exposure time" variable is exactly that. The act of running causes you to increase your rain exposure, so unless I'm missing something, at some point the "exposure time" will become long enough that the act of running is rendered ineffective, and then actually becomes worse. (For example, if you ran around in a circle for a set time, instead of from point to point). Like I said, I do get that by that point it may not functionally matter, and that if you ran from your car to the store you will not be as wet as if you walked, but it is important to understand the subtleties in order to properly understand why.
  - RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
    Nope, I give up. It seems to me that what you're saying is either trivially true and therefore completely pointless, or simply wrong. I can't believe you're as clueless as my parsing/reading seems to make you, so I guess we're just talking past each other. Maybe others will understand you and gain something from it, but I doubt there's much to be gained by you continuing to explain to me, and me trying to understand. Thanks for trying.

RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago

Nope, I still don't understand you. One more try, then I'll give up. You originally said: In other words, running in the rain gets you more wet, given that all running is doing is reducing your exposure time. The running is reducing your exposure time, and that reduce is enough to get you less wet. Hence your claim that it gets you more wet is nonsense. What have I misunderstood?

run4yourlives 17y ago
The running is reducing your exposure time, and that reduce is enough to get you less wet. Um, the "exposure time" variable is exactly that. The act of running causes you to increase your rain exposure, so unless I'm missing something, at some point the "exposure time" will become long enough that the act of running is rendered ineffective, and then actually becomes worse. (For example, if you ran around in a circle for a set time, instead of from point to point). Like I said, I do get that by that point it may not functionally matter, and that if you ran from your car to the store you will not be as wet as if you walked, but it is important to understand the subtleties in order to properly understand why.
- RiderOfGiraffes 17y ago
  Nope, I give up. It seems to me that what you're saying is either trivially true and therefore completely pointless, or simply wrong. I can't believe you're as clueless as my parsing/reading seems to make you, so I guess we're just talking past each other. Maybe others will understand you and gain something from it, but I doubt there's much to be gained by you continuing to explain to me, and me trying to understand. Thanks for trying.