Would women still need to wear bras in zero-gravity?
asking the important questions!
>>16543051>massive udders floating up in your face and fucking up your momentum when trying to leap-navigate through craft/stationsthey'd need them even more I imagine.
>>16543066>fucking up your momentum*internal angular momentumtheir linear momentum can’t change. Udders only affect the moment of inertia tensor.
>>16543117>their linear momentum can’t changenot necessarily. it would depend on the shape of the booba in question. outwardly pointed hangers might convert some of the linier momentum into angular momentum.please consult the diagram attached.
>>16543150No, it doesn't. Booba aren't external. Go reread any undergrad classical mechanics textbook before posting again.
>>16543051It is established canon that they do not.
Imagine the random angle of an accidental milk spray without something to limit the force vectors of those udders. And the centrifugal force would probably be enough for it to go right through a single layer of T-shirt material if it, uh, dripped with force.It's probably not so bad for Canadians though, because they keep their milk in plastic bags.
>>16543158in figure 3 the booba meat has a higher velocity and on stretching, some energy/velocity is lost due to heat/stretching in that direction, skin is not perfectly elastic, and when it returns, a bit less is lost due to heat in figure 4, as some has already bled off.
>>16543179I don’t care about your silly figures. Go review Newton’s second law and what the difference between an internal and an external force is.
>>16543180Are you under the impression that if you threw a tennis ball, in outer space, inside a perfect vacuum, that it would bounce around forever?
>>16543191I am under the impression that you don’t know basic classical mechanics. Let me give a quick lecture. Newton’s law statesF = dp/dtwhere F is the sum of EXTERNAL forces on a system, p is the system’s linear momentum and dp/dt is the time derivative.Booba are part of the system known as a woman, so they can’t exert any EXTERNAL force on a woman by definition. So no change of linear momentum is possible due to booba.
>>16543200like the tennis ball which would eventually lose all its momentum through heat after each compression, the natural differences in the elasticity and angles of the booba where the heat was lost on each bounce would slightly divert the course of the woman if she jumped into the void of space. newton did not account for big swinging booba.
>>16543051The heart pumps a lot harder to the head than it does to the legs, because gravity. When you dont get gravity the brain explodes from the blood pressure and also the CSF shifts towards the head. It first destroys the eyes.Its total brain death in outer space
>>16543206>which would eventually lose all its (linear) momentum>through heatDios mio… You’re retarded, anon. It would only lose angular momentum, not linear momentum. Compression is virtually isotropic (the oscillations go back and forth, there’s a mirror symmetry with no preferred direction). And booba lose angular momentum through heat at such a tiny rate that the woman is likely to die of old age before she notices any difference.
>>16543191>tennis ball>outer space>perfect vacuum>bounceoh dear
>>16543210>>16543117>can't changeBut it can. Maybe it would take a bit, but it can. I repeat my assertion.Newton did not account for booba.
>>16543222I don’t know what you’re getting from these posts because acting retarded is not trolling. It’s just being retarded.
>>16543051They ought to since tits aren't rigid and just because you're weightless doesn't mean you don't undergo acceleration
>>16543200NTA, but you realize people are basically sacks of water right? Especially women and their external fat sacks are not exactly well approximated by closed rigid object systems. They tend to flop about when they move quickly and suddenly, and then oscillate a bit when they come to a sudden stop. Gravity plays a lot less of a role in this than inertia and the fact that humans are in fact mostly liquid.
I wonder if there's more recorded data from this experiment
>>16543051Need? Don't know about "need" but bras are a standard issue part of the NASA uniform set for females.
>>16543051They don't need to wear bras at all. It's a jewish pys op to reduce the birth rate. The bazongas need to bazong.
>>16543380>They don't need to wear bras at all. It's a jewish pys op to reduce the birth rate. The bazongas need to bazong.
>>16543191Imagine a perfectly spherical tennis ball... wait, um...
>>16543333Sure. What does any of it have to do with linear momentum? I’ll tell you: none of it. The whole flopping thing just changes the moment of inertia making the dynamics more complicated. That’s it.
>>16543179>booba meat Boobs are glands
>>16543613There's actually a pretty easy experiment you could do to test this theory. Tightly hold an 80% full jug of water to your chest. Now run a few steps and jump in the air with it. You'll see when you land it will torque your chest a bit as the water sloshes back and forth. It's the same idea.
>>16543677There’s actually a pretty easy experiment where you could test this theory. It’s called any experiment in classical mechanics involving conservation of linear momentum. Holy fuck, is this your average /sci/ poster? Completely incapable of working from the basics and just inventing shit on the fly that absolutely needs a separate experiment to “test” it.
>>16543683> Conservation of linear momentum.You've confused the model for the thing we are seeking to model, you retard. The "basics" assume rigid body objects, no friction, no internal fluid dynamics for the object, and shape preserving contact interactions. None of these are present in the real world. You're calling people brainlets while being completely incapable of realizing "the basics" you learned in your physics 1 course are idealized models designed for "good enough" approximations. They aren't correct in really any circumstance beyond the idealized homework problems in that class.
>>16543051More so than in gravity. You would need less support from the bottom but you would need to cover the tops so they don't flop around e.g. some kind of sports bra instead.
>>16543051Isaac Asimov answers this in his book Nemesis
>>16543737You're confused if you think there are systems that don't admit separate treatment of linear vs angular momentum. I repeat. Go open ANY undergraduate classical mechanics textbook. The separation of linear and angular momentum is covered in the first chapter of every such book. Muh friction, muh fluid dynamics, muh contact interactions ALL don't fucking matter because this is a basic consequence of Noether's theorem.
>>16543051Bras are used for to primary reasons: support and coverage. Suppose that a woman in the ISS has no need for coverage therefor the olnly reason she would were a bra is support. In microgravity there is no need for support for there is no gravitational pull to put weight on the breasts. We also have to take into consideration the mechanics of the system breasts-bra. Down to earth the mass of the breasts create weight force that is balanced with the tension created form the bra to the body, in zero gravity (more correctly microgravity) however the weight force is not aplied and therefor the only force would be the one form the bra to the body that would not be convinient. yet without a bra the breasts will follow the bodys inertia and will always become a barrier in the ability to properly move (think that when ypou float up and then stop the boobs will float up to the face). Therefor i believe that the proper solution would be a more loose like-bra garment that would provide both the wanted coverage and the solution to the inartia problem while being easy to use fron the woman
>>16543372May I see a standard issue nasa bra?
>>16543677God you people are so fucking stupid
>>16543051finally a good fucking thread.they would need special space bras.
>>16543051If tits didn't sag downwards, they'd be a disaster. Imagine if they were perfectly level or floating upwards at all times. God designed womankind perfectly in that regard.
>>16543051They don’t need to wear bras even now and bra usage is proven to be exclusively detrimental crippling muscle growth and in turn necessitating lifelong depended on artificial support.
>>16546790we gonna know 100 percent now
>>16543191What the fuck is it bouncing off of? Photons?
>>16543051It depends, boobas no, milkers yes.
>>16546790what site is this
