Not particularly. It was argued it wouldn't move even in the case of no friction in the wheels, so even the frictionless case can confuse people.KemicalBurn said:Without friction the whole thing is redundant, pointless, and a waste of time discussing![]()
Just arbitrarily picking the situation to have certain perfect qualities, and certain physical qualities isn't very good either, because you then tune the question to give the answer you want. It should be completely physical or completely idealised.
But then, the problem with saying "Okay, lets put in physical restraints" is you no longer have a conceptual problem, but an engineering one. The belt isn't perfect, but it has friction. Then you just need to be able to build a belt capable of moving several hundred miles an hour (most hotels or shopping centres have trouble getting them to move at 2 miles an hour!). But then if you could build a really powerful set of engines, you could make a plane better than the conveyor belt. It becomes a matter of "The plane will fly if the engineering crew building the plane are good enough to beat the engineering crew building the conveyor belt."
Bit of a crappy answer when you put in all physical constraints.