Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!ucbvax!CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV!roberts
From: roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Comparing c and speed of sound
Message-ID: <8902080259.AA04715@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Date: 8 Feb 89 02:59:18 GMT
Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU
Organization: National Institute of Standards and Technology
Lines: 32


>From: dinl!holroyd@handies.ucar.edu  (kevin w. holroyd)
>Subject: Re: Approaching c

>Just one note of skepticism here...

>Back in the 1940's when we were attempting to break the sound barrier,
>the aerodynamic equations seemed to indicate the the air loads (the force on
>the wings) would go infinite at Mach speed.  Half the aerospace engineers
>seemed to think it was not possible to accomplish.  Good thing Chuck Yeager
>wasn't real strong in Math.

If they really thought air loads would go infinite, they should have known
better. At the time, there were many things which could be made to go faster
than the speed of sound (i.e. many rifle bullets), which were not crushed
by infinite forces. I agree that theories have been proven wrong in the
past and probably will be in the future, and that one should not assume
all current theories are correct, but different theories have different
degrees of "solidity", and Special Relativity seems pretty solid at present.
The fact that one theory has been proven wrong does not mean that all other
theories are *equally* doubtful.

My own area of skepticism: I'm not convinced that it's possible for a 
black hole to come into existence in a finite period of time, from the
viewpoint of an outside observer.

"Everyone knows that dragons don't exist. But while this simplistic
formulation may satisfy the layman, it does not suffice for the
scientific mind." - The Cyberiad, by Stanislaw Lem

                                   John Roberts
                                   roberts@cmr.icst.nbs.gov