ballistics, etc.

[Andrew Dinn]

grip at netcom.com writes:

> Well if an object is tossed into a vaccuum, and is fairly close to the 
> surface of a large massive body, it's path is close to a parabola. But 
> with air resistance, and curvature of the earth, the path of a falling 
> body is no longer  a parabola. I doubt it is any of the simple conic 
> sections. Certainly the distance between Hague and London is far enough 
> for both effects to ruin any parabolic arc.

In particular, the Rocket is powered up to Brennschluss so the
trajectory is only under gravity at this point. At which point, given
enough thrust, the trajectory might truly become elliptical, should
the altitude and velocity suit. But the original question was more
interesting - why should Pynchon describe the arc as parabolic when an
ellipse gives a closer approximation to motion under a central
(gravitational) force? A related issue might be his mention of the
parabola as a new form in arcitecture, embodying the spirit of
National Socialism? Does gravity have to bring everything down with a
bump (well, I ain't seen an elephant fly).

By the way, has anyone else read Rilke's poem `Schwerigkeit'? Did it
ring any alarm bells?


Andrew Dinn
-----------
Daran, nachdem die Wasserwogen / Von unsrer Suendflut sich verzogen
Der allerschoenste Regenbogen / Als Gottes Gnadenzeichen steht!