SR-71 and relativity
Ralph Jones
dle...@stega.smoky.org (Dimitriy A. Levin) wrote:
>A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing SR-71,
>they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
>fast-moving objects according to Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2, and thus
>at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
>increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on SR-71
>served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
>Mach=3+ speeds.
>I wonder if it is at all true. Mach=3 is a high speed, but it is only a
>tiny fraction of the speed of light. Besides, personally I would expect
>the seams to
>close as the body expands from heat associated with high-speed flying
>(they didn't use titanium for nothing).
>Just wondering...
>--
>Dimitriy A. Levin, dle...@stega.smoky.org
>Creator and maintainer of the AirPage
>http://stega.smoky.org/~dlevin/
At Mach 3, relativistic effects are so small they won't even show up
on a calculator. And it's immaterial: relativistic effects just make
the panels heavier, not bigger.
You're absolutely right: the panels just get hot and expand. The wing
skins form the fuel tanks, and since they're butt jointed, the
airplane leaks like a sieve as it's being fueled. At flight speeds it
seals up nicely. rj
Dimitriy A. Levin
William J Bollinger
>SR-71, they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
>fast-moving objects according to Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2, and thus
>at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
>increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on
>SR-71 served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass
>increases at Mach=3+ speeds.
>
>I wonder if it is at all true. Mach=3 is a high speed, but it is only a
>tiny fraction of the speed of light. Besides, personally I would expect
>the seams to
>close as the body expands from heat associated with high-speed flying
>(they didn't use titanium for nothing).
>
effects(not even close), it wouldn't manifest itself by making
the panels expand. Air friction is correct.
BTW, the space shuttle moves even faster and doesn't require seams.
Chanler Childs
>A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing SR-71,
>they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
>fast-moving objects according to Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2, and thus
>at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
>increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on SR-71
>served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
>Mach=3+ speeds.
Let me be the first to tell you your friend is feeding you a large
quantity of bull. The seams close due to the expansion of the metal due
to the high heat.
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, dle...@stega.smoky.org (Dimitriy A. Levin) said:
>A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing SR-71,
>they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
Your friend is an idiot. The gaps in the panels are to make allowances for
thermal expansion. If relativistic effects had any bearing, what would that
say about the space shuttle which goes 12 times the speed of the SR-71?
--
Paul Tomblin (ptom...@xcski.com)
<a href="http://www.servtech.com/public/ptomblin/">My home page</a>
"The superior pilot uses his superior judgement to avoid situations in which
he needs to demonstrate his superior skill" (Esp. with a 7 year old on board)
Michael Toler
Dimitriy A. Levin (dle...@stega.smoky.org) wrote:
: A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing SR-71,
: they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
: at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
: increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on SR-71
: served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
: Mach=3+ speeds.
BAHAHAHAHAHA!!! Now that is a new one on me!
There were gaps between the panels, yes (the damn thing leaks like a
sieve when fueled on the ground) and they did close up in flight, but
they did so because of HEAT expansion, not any increase in mass.
Think about it. E=mc^2
so any increase in mass (m) would be figured at m = E/c^2. That would
have to be an AWFUL high E to overcome the speed of light squared.
Ouch out
--
Michael "Ouch" Toler | Don Gaspard Du Lac
Dallas, Texas | Barrony of the Steppes, Ansteorra
Check out my new Web page (CK) at:
http://www.cris.com/~ouch01/ouch.shtml
7pap...@spcvxb.spc.edu
In article <dlevin-0305...@ii-109-lc-19.smoky.ccsd.k12.co.us>, dle...@stega.smoky.org (Dimitriy A. Levin) writes:
> A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing SR-71,
> they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
> fast-moving objects according to Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2, and thus
> at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
> increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on SR-71
> served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
> Mach=3+ speeds.
>
> tiny fraction of the speed of light. Besides, personally I would expect
> the seams to
> close as the body expands from heat associated with high-speed flying
> (they didn't use titanium for nothing).
>
>
> --
> Dimitriy A. Levin, dle...@stega.smoky.org
> Creator and maintainer of the AirPage
> http://stega.smoky.org/~dlevin/
Relativity and the SR-71 program.
Back in 1978 there was a program called SR-71BP.
BP stood for "Back-pack". A pure ram-jet was bolted to
the center line of a SR-71. The REALLY bizzare part of
this program is that the PROTOTYPE for SR-71 BP landed
at Edwards AFB a full year before it was to be constructed.
It is suggested that the SR-71BP somehow distorted time and
went back a FULL YEAR! The matter had taken care of itself
when the decision to cancel the program was definite after
this strange incident - the SR-71BP and the two pilots
disappeared! It was not leaked whether the pilots met their
"twins".
;)
Jim Ebright
ROTFL!!
--
A/~~\A Jim Ebright NET Security: http://www.coil.com/~ebright/security.html
((0 0))_______ mailto:ebr...@coil.com "I used to hunt elephants but I
\ / the \ don't do that anymore. There aren't enough of them" - Newt
(--)\ OSU | Gingrich to Andy Lodge, Theo.Roosevelt Cons. Award winner.
Pyers Symon
In article <dlevin-0305...@ii-109-lc-19.smoky.ccsd.k12.co.us>
dle...@stega.smoky.org "Dimitriy A. Levin" writes:
> A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing SR-71,
> they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
> fast-moving objects according to Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2, and thus
> at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
> increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on SR-71
> served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
> Mach=3+ speeds.
>
> I wonder if it is at all true. Mach=3 is a high speed, but it is only a
> tiny fraction of the speed of light. Besides, personally I would expect
> the seams to
> close as the body expands from heat associated with high-speed flying
> (they didn't use titanium for nothing).
>
> Just wondering...
Er no. The basic equations governing length are Lv=L0/ sqrt(1-(v**/C**))
where Lv is the Length at velocity v, L0 is the length at rest velocity and
C the speed of light. Suppose the SR-71 is travelling at, say, 3600kph
This translates to about 1 km/s or 1000 m/s. Now light travels at
300,000,000 m/s. Feeding those numbers into the above equations we end up
with for all intents and purposes Lv=L0.
The SR-71 expanded and contracted due to thermal expansion & contaction
not relativity. Concorde does the same.
--
Pyers Symon
-----BEGIN PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Version: 2.6
mQCNAjCU6x0AAAEEAKubcs9LXQGnCJvTBpChyszOMjkGHFy7w0h4GVcE+K2ZhJMJ
Y93AfODZ+n0gIiA6mbn9I+MR9oUWjEXJr9azM+/t4115PQy5Mul75Nz+MAhMGlF4
sdEep9tlplOMbITYuPYP1ll8+SaTnFBva0AWVF8j1ceCd/7M/u1RdKhlj3rpAAUR
tCVQeWVycyBTeW1vbiA8cHllcnNAcHllcnMuZGVtb24uY28udWs+
=riW+
-----END PGP PUBLIC KEY BLOCK-----
Bev Clark/Steve Gallacci
In article <dlevin-0305...@ii-109-lc-19.smoky.ccsd.k12.co.us>,
Dimitriy A. Levin <dle...@stega.smoky.org> wrote:
>A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing SR-71,
>they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
>fast-moving objects according to Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2, and thus
>at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
>increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on SR-71
>served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
>Mach=3+ speeds.
>
>I wonder if it is at all true. Mach=3 is a high speed, but it is only a
>tiny fraction of the speed of light. Besides, personally I would expect
>the seams to
>close as the body expands from heat associated with high-speed flying
>(they didn't use titanium for nothing).
Relativistic effects don't really kick in untill you get to a fair
fraction of C, and Mach three isn't it. (and one wonders why most missles or
space craft don't have simular features, though go even faster) No, it is
jsut thermal expansion relief joints.
Richard Oliver
Your guess is the right answer...the reason the body panels on the SR
have such large gaps (which ends up leaking fuel like a sieve on the
ground) is to compensate for thermal expansion of the body at Mach 3+
speeds. When the titanium heats up and expands, the gaps close and
the aircraft is smooth and tight. Just for your friend's benefit, ask
him if the gaps in the SR were due to E=mc2, how come none of the
Apollo aircraft or the space shuttle don't have the same or even
_bigger_ gaps? The lunar modules traveled more than five times as
fast as the SR, so they should have had gaps that Armstrong and
others could have _seen_ through, right? Good luck!
Simon Lam
: A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing SR-71,
: they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
: fast-moving objects according to Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2, and thus
: at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
: increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on SR-71
: served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
: Mach=3+ speeds.
Me thinks your friend was either:
1. Testing your knowledge
2. Testing your IQ
3. Making a joke
4. Full of shit
5. Full of bullshit
6. Exploding with bullshit
7. 4, 5 & 6
8. A dumb ass who pretends to know a lot but doesn't know shit
from Shinola.
No offense. 8) It's thermal expansion.
However, knowing that I don't know shit either, how does E=mc^2 come into
play with increased mass in planes? Doesn't the plane have to be
accelerating or decelerating for this to come into play?
--
Simon Lam
It's the man, not the machine.
E-mail:simo...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca
Simon Lam
: Relativity and the SR-71 program.
: Back in 1978 there was a program called SR-71BP.
: BP stood for "Back-pack". A pure ram-jet was bolted to
: the center line of a SR-71. The REALLY bizzare part of
: this program is that the PROTOTYPE for SR-71 BP landed
: at Edwards AFB a full year before it was to be constructed.
: It is suggested that the SR-71BP somehow distorted time and
: went back a FULL YEAR! The matter had taken care of itself
: when the decision to cancel the program was definite after
: this strange incident - the SR-71BP and the two pilots
: disappeared! It was not leaked whether the pilots met their
: "twins".
[chuckles] Actually, according to Einstein's theory, as an object nears
the speed of light, its mass also increases. At c (the speed of light in
a vacuum) the energy needed to accelerate an object any further would be
infinite (due to the increased mass, which also happens to be infinite if
I remember correctly). Study your science buddy! 8)
Please be kind in flaming me. Since I'm only 15, can you please use 15%
of the flame you intened to use?
TheWright1
In article <4mh3ii$o...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Simon Lam) writes:
>However, knowing that I don't know shit either, how does E=mc^2 come into
>play with increased mass in planes? Doesn't the plane have to be
>accelerating or decelerating for this to come into play?
>
>
In general relativity theory, mass is a frozen form of pure energy...which
is the best way to describe the above equation. Studies in particle
physics have shown that as an atomic particle approaches the speed of
light, energy imparted to the particle is converted to mass. (The speeds
require the particle to reach at least .8 the speed of light and higher
before the mass increase becomes discernable or significant.) Which in
turns means that ever higher energy levels are required to reach higher
speeds. It is one of the arguments supporting the idea that the speed of
light is an absolute limit. In short, it has absolutely nothing to do
with airplanes.
Such is an explaination from someone who knows just enough to be dangerous
. Real physicists should be able to give a more accurate answer.
Martin/Jennifer Keenan
I have nothing further to add on the subject of relativistic effects
on the SR-71 - Previous explanations have said it all.
However, there _is_ a relativistic effect that does show
(barely) at aviation speeds.
I'm afraid I can't recall the exact particulars, as it
involves a television program I saw on the subject from about 1980.
However, the gist of it is that a very sensitive cesium atom clock,
flown on a long flight on a Lockheed Tristar, did show the
appropriate (ie: tiny!) amount of time dialation appropriate for the
velocity and distance flown.
I wish I could give more particulars. Has anyone else here
ever heard of this experiement?
Martin
Tarver Engineering
You are talking about an amount of time that could not be percieved by
a human. The original poster was talking about mass considerations.
John P. Tarver, PE
>Martin
>
Fubar2X
>
> A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing
SR-71,
> they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
> fast-moving objects according to Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2, and thus
> at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
> increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on
SR-71
> served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
> Mach=3+ speeds.
>
>
(1) The speed of light is about 671 million mph, or roughly Mach
1,000,000 !
(2) The first-order special relativistic correction (appropriate for
speeds small compared to that of light) is about (1/2) (v**2) / (c**2).
At the top speed of the SR-71, this is a factor of about 1 part in 200
billion. The length of a SR-71 as measured by someone on the ground would
shrink by about the diameter of one atom due to relativistic effects
caused by its motion.
(3) Note that since the seams, panels, fuel, pilot, etc of the SR-71 are
all moving along at the same speed, i.e. there's no RELATIVE motion, the
net effect of special relativity is absolutely ZERO. It is true that IF
the SR-71 could do Mach 800,000 then we watching on the GROUND would
compute its length to be only 60% of what it was at zero velocity, and we
would calculate that the pilot's watch was running at only 60% of what
our's were, and we would calculate that the mass of the plane was 67%
greater than what it would be at zero velocity, etc., but the pilot
wouldn't notice any of those effects since he's moving along with the
plane and all his measuring instruments ( ruler, clock, scale ) would be
affected by exactly the same amounts.. Similarly, an engineer ( Mary, say
) sitting out on the wings at Mach 800,000 measuring the seams would
notice absolutely zilch effect due to relativity, even at Mach 800,000.
As many others have said, its friction.
Paul Tomblin
In a previous article, kee...@inforamp.net (Martin/Jennifer Keenan) said:
> I'm afraid I can't recall the exact particulars, as it
>involves a television program I saw on the subject from about 1980.
>However, the gist of it is that a very sensitive cesium atom clock,
>flown on a long flight on a Lockheed Tristar, did show the
>appropriate (ie: tiny!) amount of time dialation appropriate for the
>velocity and distance flown.
Yes, I remember this experiment, because it was an important confirmation of
the Einstein/Lorentz time dilation predictions.
I wonder if time dilation is important to the clocks in the GPS satellites?
John Shinal
dle...@stega.smoky.org (Dimitriy A. Levin) wrote:
>A friend of mine ...
>He claims that the wide seams between panels on SR-71
>served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
How about a thought experiment ? Einstein would like that.
We're in our SR-71 with the throttle set for 90% of lightspeed.
We notice that our plane looks OK to us, but our T-38 chase plane
(who is also doing 90% of lightspeed, but low on gas) radios to us
that our SR-71 is growing longer. However the nose is getting as
distorted as the tail, and so the seams are being lengthened as well.
The seams grow in proportion to the panels. Nothing gets closer
together.
Now try to slow that Blackbird down and hit the tanker orbiting at
Pluto. Where'd that T-38 go ?
John S. Shinal
jsh...@nando.net
John S. Shinal
jsh...@nando.net
funkraum
>I wonder if it is at all true. Mach=3 is a high speed, but it is only a
>tiny fraction of the speed of light. Besides, personally I would expect
>the seams to
>close as the body expands from heat associated with high-speed flying
>(they didn't use titanium for nothing).
While Concorde is cruising above Mach 1, the flight engineer is able
to push his hand between the side of his instrument panel and the back
wall of the cockpit (he is seated facing starboard). This is
impossible while the aircraft is on the ground or at lower speeds.
That's how much kinetic heating is applied to the airframe of +Mach
aircraft.
Suzanne Archibald
Martin/Jennifer Keenan (kee...@inforamp.net) wrote:
I'm afraid I can't recall the exact particulars, as it
: involves a television program I saw on the subject from about 1980.
: However, the gist of it is that a very sensitive cesium atom clock,
: flown on a long flight on a Lockheed Tristar, did show the
: appropriate (ie: tiny!) amount of time dialation appropriate for the
: velocity and distance flown.
I seem to recall a similar (same?) program, but if I recall, it wasn't one
individual flight, but a period of about 5 years of flying, where they
discovered the onboard (very accurate) clock was an amount of time out
from what should be expected given the accuracy on the clock, later
experiments showed that the clock was remaining accurate on the ground and
its accuracy didn't account for the time difference. In the end they
concluded that it was due to the effects of relativity (i don't remember
exactly, but i suspect they took another clock up in the plane and measured
its accuracy at speed) accumulated over the years of flying.
-
Bill Frensley
In article <DqzMt...@xcski.com>, ptom...@compass.xcski.com (Paul Tomblin) writes:
|> In a previous article, kee...@inforamp.net (Martin/Jennifer Keenan) said:
|> >involves a television program I saw on the subject from about 1980.
|> >However, the gist of it is that a very sensitive cesium atom clock,
|> >flown on a long flight on a Lockheed Tristar, did show the
|> >appropriate (ie: tiny!) amount of time dialation appropriate for the
|> >velocity and distance flown.
|>
|> the Einstein/Lorentz time dilation predictions.
|>
|> I wonder if time dilation is important to the clocks in the GPS satellites?
|>
|>
I have been told by those who have worked on GPS systems that this effect
is indeed taken into account in the syncronization of the clocks and the
data reduction to determine position.
--
Bill Frensley
Electrical Engineering
University of Texas at Dallas
P.O. Box 830688, MS. EC-33
Richardson, Texas 75083-0688
Simon Lam
> I think it is best to recognize that posting about the time-travel
> as the flame-bait that it is. The whole point was to GET you to
> respond, and start an argument that would trash the group. I will
> commend you for holding your temper; but even responding to such posts
> usually encourages such morons to come back.....
Actually, I didn't know it was a flame bait... I thought it was quite
funny...
Simon Lam
Simon Lam
: I'm afraid I can't recall the exact particulars, as it
: However, the gist of it is that a very sensitive cesium atom clock,
: flown on a long flight on a Lockheed Tristar, did show the
: appropriate (ie: tiny!) amount of time dialation appropriate for the
: velocity and distance flown.
I think they did an experiment in one of the first space program missions
where they had two identical clocks, one on Earth and one on the machine.
Apparently, they were slightly out of sync when the machine came home.
However, we're talking about mass, not time.
A question though... Why don't the clocks in GPS sats go out of wack?
Simon Lam
: We're in our SR-71 with the throttle set for 90% of lightspeed.
The plane melts. Tada! End of experiment. 8)
: We notice that our plane looks OK to us, but our T-38 chase plane
: (who is also doing 90% of lightspeed, but low on gas) radios to us
: that our SR-71 is growing longer. However the nose is getting as
: distorted as the tail, and so the seams are being lengthened as well.
: The seams grow in proportion to the panels. Nothing gets closer
: together.
If the chase plane is at the same speed... souldn't the SR-71 stay the
same? After all, their relative speed is 0.
SoBernardo
Some people can't tell the difference between flames and heartburn.
Matthew Saroff
dle...@stega.smoky.org (Dimitriy A. Levin) wrote:
>A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing SR-71,
>they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
>fast-moving objects according to Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2, and thus
>at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
>increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on SR-71
>served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
>Mach=3+ speeds.
>I wonder if it is at all true. Mach=3 is a high speed, but it is only a
>tiny fraction of the speed of light. Besides, personally I would expect
>the seams to
>close as the body expands from heat associated with high-speed flying
>(they didn't use titanium for nothing).
Hi,
No that would be Aurora ;-).
For the smiley impaired, that's a wink.
--
Matthew Saroff
Does anyone else out there strongly feel that the folks at the TV
Networks who have censored out Daffy's beak getting blown off (Shoot
Me NOW!) deserve to be stripped naked, tied face down over a chair,
covered with moose musk, and set in the migratory path of a large
moose herd?
Comments to msa...@pobox.com
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Marc de Vries
Simon Lam wrote:
>
> : We're in our SR-71 with the throttle set for 90% of lightspeed.
>
> The plane melts. Tada! End of experiment. 8)
>
> : We notice that our plane looks OK to us, but our T-38 chase plane
> : (who is also doing 90% of lightspeed, but low on gas) radios to us
> : that our SR-71 is growing longer. However the nose is getting as
> : distorted as the tail, and so the seams are being lengthened as well.
> : The seams grow in proportion to the panels. Nothing gets closer
> : together.
>
> If the chase plane is at the same speed... souldn't the SR-71 stay the
> same? After all, their relative speed is 0.
Correct. With no relative speed difference you wouldn't notice any chance in the SR-71.
That's the essential point with this theory. Your relative speed compared to others.
Marc
Cole Pierce
|>
|> Relativity and the SR-71 program.
|>
|> Back in 1978 there was a program called SR-71BP.
|> BP stood for "Back-pack". A pure ram-jet was bolted to
|> the center line of a SR-71. The REALLY bizzare part of
|> this program is that the PROTOTYPE for SR-71 BP landed
|> at Edwards AFB a full year before it was to be constructed.
|> It is suggested that the SR-71BP somehow distorted time and
|> went back a FULL YEAR! The matter had taken care of itself
|> when the decision to cancel the program was definite after
|> this strange incident - the SR-71BP and the two pilots
|> disappeared! It was not leaked whether the pilots met their
|> "twins".
|>
|>
There is an SR-71 complete with back-pack ramjet on the floor of
the Boeing Aviation Museum in Seattle. Worth a visit.
gun one
Brian Burke
aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Simon Lam) wrote:
<Snip>
>
>A question though... Why don't the clocks in GPS sats go out of wack?
My understanding is that they do. But since it is predictable it can be
taken into account.
Disclaimer: I'm not a physicist so this could be hogwash.
BB
Kevin Horsley
In message <4mjhp7$2...@news.inforamp.net>, kee...@inforamp.net (Martin/Jennifer
Keenan) writes:
> However, there _is_ a relativistic effect that does show
>(barely) at aviation speeds.
>
> I'm afraid I can't recall the exact particulars, as it
>involves a television program I saw on the subject from about 1980.
>However, the gist of it is that a very sensitive cesium atom clock,
>flown on a long flight on a Lockheed Tristar, did show the
>appropriate (ie: tiny!) amount of time dialation appropriate for the
>velocity and distance flown.
>
> I wish I could give more particulars. Has anyone else here
>ever heard of this experiement?
>
>Martin
If I remember correctly, the time dilation effect that was studied
wasn't actually due to aircraft speed. Instead, the differences in the force
of gravity between the cruising altitude and the surface of the planet resulted
in time dilation. It had something to do with the differences between special
relativity and general relativity. (ie. presence of a gravity well)
Which makes sense because then there would be time dilation for a
satellite in geosynchronous orbit. According to an observer on Earth, the
relative speed of such a satellite would be zero. As such, their clocks would
show no differences, when, in fact, they should. The satellite's clock would
run slower. There was some incredibly long equation that would let you figure
out exactly how slow the clock should be running, but I have long since
forgotten it, thankfully.
Hope that helps.
Kevin Horsley
7pap...@spcvxb.spc.edu
In article <4mh4fd$o...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>, aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Simon Lam) writes:
> : Relativity and the SR-71 program.
>
> : Back in 1978 there was a program called SR-71BP.
> : BP stood for "Back-pack". A pure ram-jet was bolted to
> : the center line of a SR-71. The REALLY bizzare part of
> : this program is that the PROTOTYPE for SR-71 BP landed
> : at Edwards AFB a full year before it was to be constructed.
> : It is suggested that the SR-71BP somehow distorted time and
> : went back a FULL YEAR! The matter had taken care of itself
> : when the decision to cancel the program was definite after
> : this strange incident - the SR-71BP and the two pilots
> : disappeared! It was not leaked whether the pilots met their
> : "twins".
>
> the speed of light, its mass also increases. At c (the speed of light in
> a vacuum) the energy needed to accelerate an object any further would be
> infinite (due to the increased mass, which also happens to be infinite if
> I remember correctly). Study your science buddy! 8)
WHAT!
Then all my fantasy would stop.. NO Way..
> Please be kind in flaming me. Since I'm only 15, can you please use 15%
> of the flame you intened to use?
No problemo - I am mentally 5 years old, so you are my senior.
Hamish Wheeler
No worries:
"A battery of intelligence tests were administered to the 2 million
recruits of the American Expeditionary Force during the First World
War by psychologists attached to the Surgeon General's staff. Besides
weeding out 8,646 recruits for mental insufficiency, the tests also
determined that the average age of these men - and by extension the
nation - was thirteen years and one month."
Storming Heaven - Jay Stevens
Dennis Jensen
In article <4mh3ii$o...@main.freenet.hamilton.on.ca>,
aa...@freenet.hamilton.on.ca (Simon Lam) wrote:
>: A friend of mine recently told me that when Lockheed was designing SR-71,
>: they had to account for the change in mass that is experienced by
>: fast-moving objects according to Einstein's relativity (E=mc^2, and thus
>: at high speeds increase in E (kinetic energy) results in proportional
>: increase in mass)). He claims that the wide seams between panels on SR-71
>: served the purpose of buffers and would close as the mass increases at
>: Mach=3+ speeds.
>
> 1. Testing your knowledge
> 2. Testing your IQ
> 3. Making a joke
> 4. Full of shit
> 5. Full of bullshit
> 6. Exploding with bullshit
> 7. 4, 5 & 6
> 8. A dumb ass who pretends to know a lot but doesn't know shit
>from Shinola.
>
>No offense. 8) It's thermal expansion.
>
>play with increased mass in planes? Doesn't the plane have to be
>accelerating or decelerating for this to come into play?
>
Relativistic Theory, increased velocity means increased mass. At the speed of
light, the mass of the object is infinite, which is why you cannot have any
object that has mass moving at the speed of light-it would take more energy
than the universe has.
Dennis
A. Cunningham
Assuming the SR-71 does 2000Mph, according to the USAF museum web page,
though I always thought it did more, about 2200 Mph.
The mass increase is:
Mass = gamma * (rest mass)
where gamma = 1/SQRT(1+(v/c)^2) c being the speed of light.
2000 Mph gives gamma = 1 (my calculator only goes to 14 sig. figs.)
By hand gives about 1-10^(-24)
ie. a change in mass in the region of 0.000000000000000000001%
For 2200 Mph, this is in the region of 0.00000000000000000001%
Who ever said it was mass increase due to relativity is talking crap.
Howvever, there may be a significant *apparent* mass increase due to
accelerations, but fighters (and fighter pilots) will suffer much more
from this than SR-71's.
Alistair Cunningham.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alistair Cunningham Selwyn College, Cambridge Email: ac...@cam.ac.uk
WWW: http://owl.sel.cam.ac.uk/ursa/ Fax: (01223) 335837
om
On 7 May 1996 14:14:35 GMT, pie...@pat.mdc.com (Cole Pierce) wrote:
>|>
>|> Relativity and the SR-71 program.
>|>
>|> Back in 1978 there was a program called SR-71BP.
<snipola>
....Actually, this was the SR-71BS program. :-)
>There is an SR-71 complete with back-pack ramjet on the floor of
>the Boeing Aviation Museum in Seattle. Worth a visit.
...As I recall, that's not a "back-pack ramjet", that's a D-21 drone.
OM
Chris Walker
Simon Lam wrote:
>
> : I'm afraid I can't recall the exact particulars, as it
> : involves a television program I saw on the subject from about 1980.
> : However, the gist of it is that a very sensitive cesium atom clock,
> : flown on a long flight on a Lockheed Tristar, did show the
> : appropriate (ie: tiny!) amount of time dialation appropriate for the
> : velocity and distance flown.
>
> where they had two identical clocks, one on Earth and one on the machine.
> Apparently, they were slightly out of sync when the machine came home.
> However, we're talking about mass, not time.
>
>
Because the reference frequecy of the orbiting clocks is 10.229 999 995
43 MHz and for those on the ground is 10.23MHz
A good article on the subject is "Relativity and GPS" by Neil Ashby in
GPS World Nov 1993.
This reference points out that there are effects due to General
Relativity as well as Special Relativity. I don't have time to go into
them at present.
Chris
Chris Walker
Simon Lam wrote:
>
> : We're in our SR-71 with the throttle set for 90% of lightspeed.
>
> The plane melts. Tada! End of experiment. 8)
>
> : We notice that our plane looks OK to us, but our T-38 chase plane
> : (who is also doing 90% of lightspeed, but low on gas) radios to us
> : that our SR-71 is growing longer. However the nose is getting as
> : distorted as the tail, and so the seams are being lengthened as well.
> : The seams grow in proportion to the panels. Nothing gets closer
> : together.
>
> If the chase plane is at the same speed... souldn't the SR-71 stay the
> same? After all, their relative speed is 0.
>
Yes. At least from my understanding of relativity.
Chris