Science Humor: A Wide Selection

[Ivan Seeking]

oh come on does nobody get my joke? I thought it was funny...:D

I thought it was funny enough to immediately forward it to friends and family.

 

[DrKareem]

In a scientific lecture, the lecturer wanted to get the scientists attention. He said "Pi is exactly three!" and all the scientists looked in amazement



:zzz:

 

[Hypercase]

DrKareem been watching the simpsons have u?? ;)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Relativists admit that the bible contains the "gospel truth".

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Malloy Factor is the rate at which high energy physics experiments convert entire civilizations into little black holes. This also explains the origins of dark matter.

 

[Imparcticle]

Teacher : What's 7Q + 3Q ?
Student: 10Q
Teacher: haha. Your welcome.

 

[Mentat]

oh come on does nobody get my joke? I thought it was funny...:D

It was hilarious :rofl:. I just got through wiping the tears from my eyes.

 

[Quantum_Prodegy]

woohoo

 

[gerben]

Gotta love high school...

So there's a chicken and an egg in bed, the egg rolls off the chicken, lights a cigarette and says "well, I guess we solved that riddle".

but... how did they solve any riddle? (let alone the "chicken or the egg" riddle)

 

[Mentat]

Grafitti on a college wall (for real):

To be is to do - Immanuel Kant
To be or not to be - William Shakespeare
Do-be-do-be-do - Frank Sinatra

 

[Imparcticle]

This is the nerdiest thing I have ever seen! And I thought I was nerdy! Anyway, how is this a song? Is it a rap song? I tried singing it, but it turned out wierd...but close enough. Check this out:http://www.scientainment.com/max.pdf

 

[Mentat]

but... how did they solve any riddle? (let alone the "chicken or the egg" riddle)

Do you know what the "chicken or the egg" riddle is?

 

[gerben]

Do you know what the "chicken or the egg" riddle is?

well I thought the riddle was: "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"

 

[Achtung]

oh this is just disgusting. stop picking this joke apart. it was hilarious. if u don't get it then atleast don't spoil(hijack? this is not a joke discussion thread) this thread for the rest of us.
Where the hell is ur sense of humor?(rehtorical let's not discuss that either)

 

[vikasj007]

why are mathematicians afraid of driving??









they think that the width of the road is almost zero as compared to its length.

 

[Mentat]

I'm sorry, Achtung. I'm going to make a final attempt...here goes...

well I thought the riddle was: "what came first, the chicken or the egg?"

...nope. I've changed my mind. Gerben, if you can't tell what the point of the joke is from the exact way that you phrased the riddle, phrase it differently and see if it comes to you then...

 

[Mentat]

Astonomer #1: ...so anyway the cop pulls me over and asks if I realized
that I had just run a redlight. So I said that I did not see the light as
being red, because it must have blue-shifted as i was approaching it.
Astronomer #2: And he let you go?
Astronomer #1: No. He gave me a speeding ticket intead.


Three Laws of Thermodynamics (paraphrased):
First Law: You can't get anything without working for it.
Second Law: The most you can accomplish by work is to break even.
Third Law: You can't break even.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was thinking that if one more person tries to tell me why Einstein was wrong I'll throw up. Then it struck me that this may be a great way to ward off the crackpots.

 

[Icebreaker]

Several scientists were all posed the following question: "What is 2 * 2 ?"

The engineer whips out his slide rule (so it's old) and shuffles it back and forth, and finally announces "3.99".

The physicist consults his technical references, sets up the problem on his computer, and announces "it lies between 3.98 and 4.02".

The mathematician cogitates for a while, then announces: "I don't know what the answer is, but I can tell you, an answer exists!".

Philosopher smiles: "But what do you mean by 2 * 2 ?"

Logician replies: "Please define 2 * 2 more precisely."

The sociologist: "I don't know, but is was nice talking about it".

Behavioral Ecologist: "A polygamous mating system".

Medical Student: "4"
All others looking astonished: "How did you know ??"
Medical Student: "I memorized it."

 

[BobG]

Several scientists were all posed the following question: "What is 2 * 2 ?"

The engineer whips out his slide rule (so it's old) and shuffles it back and forth, and finally announces "3.99".

What the heck was he using? A 6 inch Pickett?

Taking the natural log of 2, you get about .693. If you're going to make a mistake, you're going to read it too high as .694 - there's just no way to see that as .692. Adding them together, you should know you need to be a little past halfway between the 1.38 and 1.39 mark. Taking the inverse puts you very, very close to 4.00 - maybe someone could read it as 4.01 (if they're sloppy), but only a slide rule novice could think the answer was 3.99.

Or, you could let the 2 be 2 radians. Set the index over the two, put the cursor over the radian symbol, and you get about 114.6 degrees. That's about (180-65.4) degrees. Using the cosine difference law, you square the cosine of (65.4) degrees to get .177 (don't even bother reading the cosine, since you're not using that number) and square the sine of 65.4 to get .828 (both are probably just slightly high, so hopefully the errors will cancel out). The subtraction gets you -.652, which is the cosine of 180 ± 49.3 degrees (or in this case, the cosine of 180+49.3 degrees). Placing the radian symbol over 2.293 (or at least just slightly less than 2.295) results in the index being very, very close to 4.00. Maybe someone could read it as 4.01 (if they're sloppy), but I just don't see how anyone could get 3.99.

Unless ... It is conceivable that someone might align the 2 on the CI scale above the 2 on D scale and then just read the number below the index. If the 2's were misaligned just a bit, then maybe, just maybe, someone might get 3.99. But, the chances of someone choosing that method to solve the problem is just too small to even consider.

 

[Quantum_Prodegy]

What the heck was he using? A 6 inch Pickett?

Taking the natural log of 2, you get about .693. If you're going to make a mistake, you're going to read it too high as .694 - there's just no way to see that as .692. Adding them together, you should know you need to be a little past halfway between the 1.38 and 1.39 mark. Taking the inverse puts you very, very close to 4.00 - maybe someone could read it as 4.01 (if they're sloppy), but only a slide rule novice could think the answer was 3.99.

Or, you could let the 2 be 2 radians. Set the index over the two, put the cursor over the radian symbol, and you get about 114.6 degrees. That's about (180-65.4) degrees. Using the cosine difference law, you square the cosine of (65.4) degrees to get .177 (don't even bother reading the cosine, since you're not using that number) and square the sine of 65.4 to get .828 (both are probably just slightly high, so hopefully the errors will cancel out). The subtraction gets you -.652, which is the cosine of 180 ± 49.3 degrees (or in this case, the cosine of 180+49.3 degrees). Placing the radian symbol over 2.293 (or at least just slightly less than 2.295) results in the index being very, very close to 4.00. Maybe someone could read it as 4.01 (if they're sloppy), but I just don't see how anyone could get 3.99.

Unless ... It is conceivable that someone might align the 2 on the CI scale above the 2 on D scale and then just read the number below the index. If the 2's were misaligned just a bit, then maybe, just maybe, someone might get 3.99. But, the chances of someone choosing that method to solve the problem is just too small to even consider.

uuuh...u lost me when you added the log of 2...actually, when you mentioned a "pickett"

at what level of math do you learn to do that? At grade 11 we've learned log and radians (just) but how you applied that to 2*2 i have no idea, and what are the CI and D scales?

 

[BobG]

uuuh...u lost me when you added the log of 2...actually, when you mentioned a "pickett"

at what level of math do you learn to do that? At grade 11 we've learned log and radians (just) but how you applied that to 2*2 i have no idea, and what are the CI and D scales?

Here, this site explains everything (including what a Hemmi is).

Slide Rule Universe

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Several scientists were all posed the following question: "What is 2 * 2 ?"

BobG responds "Taking the natural log of 2, you get about .693. If you're going to make a mistake, you're going to read it too high as .694 - there's just no way to see that as .692. Adding them together, you should know you need to be a little past halfway between the 1.38 and 1.39 mark. Taking the inverse puts you very, very close to 4.00 - maybe someone could read it as 4.01 (if they're sloppy), but only a slide rule novice could think the answer was 3.99.

Or, you could let the 2 be 2 radians. Set the index over the two, put the cursor over the radian symbol, and you get about 114.6 degrees. That's about (180-65.4) degrees. Using the cosine difference law, you square the cosine of (65.4) degrees to get .177 (don't even bother reading the cosine, since you're not using that number) and square the sine of 65.4 to get .828 (both are probably just slightly high, so hopefully the errors will cancel out). The subtraction gets you -.652, which is the cosine of 180 ± 49.3 degrees (or in this case, the cosine of 180+49.3 degrees). Placing the radian symbol over 2.293 (or at least just slightly less than 2.295) results in the index being very, very close to 4.00. Maybe someone could read it as 4.01 (if they're sloppy), but I just don't see how anyone could get 3.99.

Unless ... It is conceivable that someone might align the 2 on the CI scale above the 2 on D scale and then just read the number below the index. If the 2's were misaligned just a bit, then maybe, just maybe, someone might get 3.99. But, the chances of someone choosing that method to solve the problem is just too small to even consider."

I'm thinking engineering management.

 

[Icebreaker]

"A mathematical tragedy is a beautiful conjecture ruined by an ugly fact."

 

[Edgardo]

Two physicists meet in the hallway. One asks, "What's new?"

The other replies, "E over h, stupid!"

 

[Evo]

"A mathematical tragedy is a beautiful conjecture ruined by an ugly fact."

Here is the original quote "The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Thomas H. Huxley (1825 - 1895)

 

[selfAdjoint]

Here is the original quote "The great tragedy of Science - the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact."
Thomas H. Huxley (1825 - 1895)

And the occasion for the quote was that Huxley had a theory that the ridges of our fingerprints were there to protect the pores of our skin from the wear and tear that our fingertips encounter. Sounds reasonable, but somebody (Galton?) pointed out that the the pores actually run along the TOP of the ridges. And so Huxley delivered his quip.

 

[DaveC426913]

"A bloke walks into a pub, and asks for a pint of Adenosinetriphosphate.
The barman says "That'll be 80p please!"

Actually, it is much more elegant if the bartender merely says:

"That's 80p."

Sounds like a joke that got mangled along the way.




Q: What did the salad dressing say to the man who opened the fridge?
A: Close the door! Can't you see I'm mayonnaise?

 

[munky99999]

Heisenberg and Shrodinger are driving down the road when they run over a cat. Shrodinger asks, "Is it dead?" Hesineberg replies, "I can't be certain."

 

[vikasj007]

LAW OF SELECTIVE GRAVITY-an object will fall so as to do the maximum damage.

JENNING'S COROLLARY- the chances of the bread falling with the buttered side down is directly proportional to the cost of the carpet.

 

[Icebreaker]

A mathematician decides he wants to learn more about practical problems. He sees a seminar with a nice title: "The Theory of Gears." So he goes. The speaker stands up and begins, "The theory of gears with a real number of teeth is well known ..."

When a statistician passes the airport security check, they discover a bomb in his bag. He explains. "Statistics shows that the probability of a bomb being on an airplane is 1/1000. However, the chance that there are two bombs at one plane is 1/1000000. So, I am much safer..."

A physicist has been conducting experiments and has worked out a set of equations which seem to explain his data. He asks a mathematician to check them. A week later, the mathematician calls:
"I'm sorry, but your equations are complete nonsense."
"But these equations accurately predict results of experiments. Are you sure they are completely wrong?"
"To be precise, they are not always a complete nonsense. But the only case in which they are true is the trivial one where the field is Archimedean..."

An engineer and a topologist were locked in the rooms for a day with a can of food but without an opener. At the end of the day, the engineer is sitting on the floor of his room and eating from the open can: He threw it against the walls until it cracked open. In the mathematician's room, the can is still closed but the mathematician has disappeared. There are strange noises coming from inside the can... When it is opened and the mathematician crawls out. "Damn! I got a sign wrong..."

 

[Icebreaker]

A mathematician has spent ten years trying to prove the Riemann hypothesis. Finally, he decides to sell his soul to the devil in exchange for a proof. The devil promises to deliver a proof in the four weeks. Half a year later, the devil shows up again - in a rather gloomy mood. "I'm sorry", he says. "I couldn't prove the hypothesis either. But" - and his face lightens up - "I think I found a really interesting lemma..."

 

[BobG]

JENNING'S COROLLARY- the chances of the bread falling with the buttered side down is directly proportional to the cost of the carpet.

The corollary is true, but who the heck is Jenning?

It's Newton's Laws, plain and simple (1st, 2nd, and Universal Law of Gravitation).

Consider the edge of the table as your pivot point. As long as the center of gravity is on the table, there is more torque holding the bread on the table than there is rotating it off the table. Once the center of gravity is off the table, there will be more torque rotating the bread off the table than holding it on. As long as the angle between the bread and table top is small, the center of gravity will remain pretty much stationary, giving the bread a constant angular acceleration. At around 30 degrees or so, the center of gravity is going to start sliding away from the edge of the table. The torque imbalance is greater, but the force of gravity is also now divided between giving the bread a downward motion and supplying torque to the bread. Eventually, the entire piece of bread has left the table. At this point, there is no more angular acceleration. Whatever the angular velocity is at this point will remain constant for the duration of the bread's fall to the floor.

Theoretically, the amount of rotation the piece of bread will experience during the fall will be the same every time the bread is nudged off the table. The only pertinent variables are the length of the bread and the height of the table (the height of the table determines how much time the bread has to rotate). In the real world, where you can expect the table height and toast length to fall within a very narrow range of values, a couple of other things will affect the bread's fall:

1) How much time the bread spent on the edge of the table. The more time the bread spends on the edge of the table, the higher the angular velocity when it finally leaves the table. Knock the bread off the table violently so the time spent on the edge of the table is virtually zero and the bread doesn't rotate at all - it sails across the room like a frisbee and splatters bread and jelly on the wall.

2) Air currents. Bread isn't very stable and it's fall can be affected by air currents. It's better to eat bagels. They're much more predictable when they fall off the table.

3) Finally, and most important, is the surface the bread falls on. One of the most significant variables in this experiment is the chance of getting a 'bad bounce' when the bread hits the floor. It's very hard to predict whether the bread will wind up butter side up or butter side down in a house with a gravel floor. On the other hand, if your house has a gravel floor, it doesn't bother you when your kids leave Legos laying around.

The best surface to drop bread on is plush carpeting. You almost never get a bad bounce, making the results very predictable. There's even an equation to determine the chances of the bread falling butter side up or butter side down:

$$BSD = \frac{cos \left(\sqrt{\frac{h_t}{t_l}}-\pi\right)}{2} * FQ^2 +.5$$
BSD = chance of landing butter side down
$$h_t$$ is the height of the table
$$t_l$$ is the length of the toast
FQ is the floor quality based on the following scale:

.1 = Gravel (A[angular])
.2 = dirt
.4 = hard tile
.8 = all-weather carpeting
1.0 = plush carpeting

Floor covering ceases to be the most significant variable when

a) you eat from ten-foot tables
b) you eat from a traditional Japanese style table, sitting on the floor with your legs crossed
c) you're into those dainty English style tea parties and eat short little pieces of toast
d) you're from Texas where the length of your toast is longer than the height of the table

 

[vikasj007]

The corollary is true, but who the heck is Jenning?

i just read it in the paper and posted it here, but i must tell you that you have taken the complete fun out of this joke, with your much enlightened analysis. :grumpy:

 

[Icebreaker]

Q: How many professors does it take to replace a lightbulb?
A: One, with eight research students, two programmers, three post-docs and a secretary to help him.