> > Kay. then what about http://www.rinkworks.com/brainfood/groaners.shtml #9? the LA bound train will be closer to NY because when they meet, the back of the LA bound train will still be closer to NY than the front of the LA bound train. The front of the LA bound train will meet the front of the NY bound train, at which point the trains will be considered to have met. Since the back is still closer to NY than the front of the NY bound train. . . ;)
>
> You have to assume a massless volumeless train. :-) I was about to say "spherical, homogenous, massless, volumeless train," because calling real-life objects "spherical, homogenous" for the purpose of simplifying physics problems is a running joke with Dave and I. But if it's massless and volumeless, it can't very well be spherical or homogenous.
>
> > oh, and #12 in that section's answer is 2, not three. >;)
>
> Of course.

A massless, volumeless train might annoy the Catholics and rock bands, but it has little to do with this problem. Kidding ;)

So you're into physics, eh? I'm a bit rusty with massless volumeless theories, but if I recall correctly, such a train would be capable of achieving the speed of light without having to subscribe to the latest theories about creating warp bubbles around itself wouldn't it? If that were the case, and the train ran at it's top speed, then the first train would arrive in the depot long before the second train started, which would render the problem moot ;) Of course, the fact that a volumeless train couldn't carry any passengers would also render the need to run the train at all moot ;) This would be a good thing because a train traveling at the speed of light would generate a LOT of friction, and the passengers would be cooked!


hehe. Sorry. I'm somewhat of a dork when it comes to logic problems. One of my hobbies is annoying my friends by purposely coming up with about a dozen wrong answers to their riddles, then justifying them with fake logic ;)