Farting in space

While I have no scientific evidence or theories to put forward, I just wanted to congratulate the OP on making a thread which makes me smile every time I see the name of it :D

I have this voice in my head saying "Farting in spaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaace!"

Actually, it's a little disturbing.
 
mlbtheshow said:
Why is space so dangerous? I dont get how Earth can be good for us, yet if we go into space it all changes... who made that rule up, stupid tbh... if we are supposed to evolve like Jesus said, then surely the next step from being fish > monkey > human... would be human spaceman?
Click to expand...

Do you even Science?
 
Blazin23 said:
You know that they say about people with big flames..
Click to expand...

small penis?
man boobs?
a vagina for an ass?

:p

tbh I havent a clue - learnin' = gay

also we did used to do experiments, like holding a deodorant can close to our wrists and just spray it constantly to see who could get the biggest cut/hole - funny how dangerous lynx is really tbh, ive still a faint scar.
 
Yes! Resurrect this mighty thread :D

After some thinking, I was wondering if you burped and trumped simultaneously, would you stay still?
 
Blazin23 said:
Ah yes I forgot the propulsion would be in two different directions. Unless you looked up and burped?
Click to expand...

Possible, though without knowing the exact magnitude of each expulsion, it's difficult to accurately do the calculations. Given your example, I think the most likely outcome would be a downward trajectory whilst the lower half of your body would be propelled forwards, again likely initiating a backwards flip.
 
PinkFloyd said:
Yes it would act as thrust. As would breathing out.
However it wouldn't make a whole lot of difference to your velocity due to it being such little thrust compared to your weight.
Click to expand...

Thrust/mass ratio makes no difference in space. An epic fail on behalf of Star Wars was to make large ships like Star Destroyers look cumbersome and less agile than a single seat fighter aka Tie Fighter/X-wing unless of course the smaller ships had thrust vectoring etc. Size/mass would have no bearing on how fast or agile an object is in space given the same amount of directional thrust.

Theoretically, a fart used as thrust would move a Star destroyer at the same velocity as say, a naked Stormtrooper. :p
 
w3bbo said:
An epic fail on behalf of Star Wars
Click to expand...

YOU TAKE THAT BACK. :mad:

e: also, Star Destroyers were keeping up with the Millennium Falcon in Ep IV after it left Tatooine. Whilst the agility of the likes of Jedi Starfighters, TIE Fighters and X-Wings is undoubtedly suggested, you could quite conceivably interpret that as just having a smaller ship has less area to be hit by proton torps and blaster fire.

/nerd.
 
w3bbo said:
Thrust/mass ratio makes no difference in space. An epic fail on behalf of Star Wars was to make large ships like Star Destroyers look cumbersome and less agile than a single seat fighter aka Tie Fighter/X-wing unless of course the smaller ships had thrust vectoring etc. Size/mass would have no bearing on how fast or agile an object is in space given the same amount of directional thrust.

Theoretically, a fart used as thrust would move a Star destroyer at the same velocity as say, a naked Stormtrooper. :p
Click to expand...

That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. Unless I've completely missunderstood what you are suggesting, you seem to be implying that Newton's laws of motions suddenly don't apply in space?!

A fart has a given amount of force, if the object it is propelling has a high mass the acceleration will be minimal. If the object has very low mass, it will gain a lot of speed.

Lower mass objects have less inertia so can change velocity with less force applied to them. This doesn't suddenly change because there is no noteable friction.
 
As they were in Ep V, in fact they were actually 'gaining on us' in Ep IV iirc ;). You also have to consider the purpose of a tractor beam. Why didn't they just tractor beam the X and Y wings? The Empire didn't seem to have a problem with a ship that made the kessel run in under 12 parsecs which to this end presumably had more thrust than the star fighters.

I actually believed everything George told me when I was a child. Sorry to burst your bubble but he lied.

Farting is the way forward. :D
 
w3bbo said:
Thrust/mass ratio makes no difference in space. An epic fail on behalf of Star Wars was to make large ships like Star Destroyers look cumbersome and less agile than a single seat fighter
Click to expand...

Would this not violate Newton's second law of motion?
Force=mass*acceleration, therefore Acceleration= force/mass.

The shape of an object makes no difference, as there is no air resistance in space, but mass most certainly does... Larger ships would take more thrust, ergo more energy to accelerate, change direction etc as they have more momentum in the direction they were already travelling- Momentum=mass*velocity - obviously mass has a very direct relationship regarding thrust to velocity ratios.
 
Last edited:
w3bbo said:
As they were in Ep V, in fact they were actually 'gaining on us' in Ep IV iirc ;). You also have to consider the purpose of a tractor beam. Why didn't they just tractor beam the X and Y wings? The Empire didn't seem to have a problem with a ship that made the kessel run in under 12 parsecs which to this end presumably had more thrust than the star fighters.

I actually believed everything George told me when I was a child. Sorry to burst your bubble but he lied.

Farting is the way forward. :D
Click to expand...

Dude, I'm a 23-year-old pension consultant dealing with death and the harsh realities of life every day and I still believe what George told us. You're never too old to feel that childlike sense of awe. ;)

Also, I appreciate that you made the Kessel Run comment without making the obvious comment. Thank you. :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom