Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!uflorida!haven!aplcen!aplcomm!stdb.jhuapl.edu!jwm
From: jwm@stdb.jhuapl.edu (Jim Meritt)
Newsgroups: sci.space
Subject: Re: Comparing c and speed of sound
Message-ID: <3188@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu>
Date: 9 Feb 89 16:27:02 GMT
References: <8902080259.AA04715@cmr.icst.nbs.gov>
Sender: news@aplcomm.jhuapl.edu
Reply-To: jwm@aplvax.UUCP (Jim Meritt)
Organization: JHU-Applied Physics Laboratory
Lines: 26

In article <8902080259.AA04715@cmr.icst.nbs.gov> roberts@CMR.ICST.NBS.GOV (John Roberts) writes:
}
}>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. 


That is a definite charley.  There had been manmade objects (well, one I can
think of) that had been going faster than sound for centuries.  Since it did,
it can.


Disclaimer:  "It's mine!  All mine!!!"   
					- D. Duck