Replies

has noted a similarity between the way most people today regard "C," the speed of light, and the way many people a generation or so ago regarded "a", the speed of sound.

I pretty much stopped taking this article serious when I reached the about statement.

Maybe they should have taken a poll and asked the people what the speed of light is.

[has noted a similarity between the way most people today regard "C," the speed of light, and the way many people a generation or so ago regarded "a", the speed of sound.

I pretty much stopped taking this article serious when I reached the about statement.]

As did I. Decades ago I was involved in aviation as I am today. There was never a moment that I didn't believe that exceeding the speed of sound was doable. There were thousands of evidences that it was being done on a routine basis in many ways. On the other hand I know of nothing that has exceeded the speed of light, to include the next to nothing photon.

I know that some believe that subatomic particles have been supposedly observed at beyond "C" but I remain skeptical. Could we be measuring wrong, or observing wrong, etc.

Subatomic particles tend to live only for the tiniest speck of time. It is most likely well beyond our technology to measure it accurately. I need more evidence.

Godspeed, The Dilg

Sorry, I should of posted the equations. The equation that he was referring to was the coefficient of pressure was equal to one over the square root of one minus the vehicle velocity squared divided by the speed of sound squared. The equation of this when plotted of pressure force, C sub rho starts at unity and then increases exponentionally at subsonic speeds approaching infinity at the speed of sound at altitude. (the equations make the assumption of stable atmospheric conditions.) The result, was that a rapidly decreasing pressure force on the aeroplane when plotted at speeds past "a".

The point that the good doctor was making was that the vehicle mass approached infinity through use of the same equation form. Starting at mass > 0 once can see that the equation of the vehicle mass properties increased such that m was equal to one over the squareroot of one minus the ship velocity squared divided by the speed of light c squared. There is nothing wrong or erronous in this equation. The relationships were and still are clear. I must apologize for not placing the equations in this post as I do not know to do so.

I suggest that you physically write out what I said in proper notation and plot the results out. The answers are very clear.

Incidently, this article was taken from a class handout for one of my Aerospace Propulsion classes at Syracuse University. Our homework, as I recall it, was to break down the equation and show exactly how the geometry of the X-1 inlet nozzle could be compared to that of a variable mass object. Now that was, gosh almost 30 years ago, but I can assure you that the technical relationships were sound.

I do however, have a real issue with your blanket of skoff. I find many really ignorant people use this technique quite often. Then pump up their chests and make it seem like they know what they are talking about. But they do not know anything. I think that you are one of these people. Careful with your Blanket of Skoff. You just might be called on the carpet to defend our postion. I find that many people like to denegrate things that they do not understand. It seems like you are just one such person.