- #91
Mk
- 2,039
- 4
Who does Schrödinger call when his car breaks down?
A Quantum Mechanic
A Quantum Mechanic
Click For Summary
The discussion centers around a variety of science-related humor, showcasing anecdotes, jokes, and humorous theories. A notable story involves a NASA team during the Apollo mission who encountered a Navajo sheep herder, leading to a humorous mistranslation of a message intended for the moon. Another highlight is Chuck Yeager's playful exaggeration about a design flaw in the Bell X-1 aircraft, which he humorously attributed to complex aerodynamics rather than a simple cable routing issue. The thread also features the "Dark Sucker Theory," humorously positing that light bulbs "suck dark" instead of emitting light, and a fictitious element called "administratium," which humorously critiques bureaucracy in science. Various jokes illustrate the intersection of humor and science, such as the classic question about the nature of hell, which leads to a clever thermodynamic analysis. Overall, the content blends clever scientific concepts with humor, appealing to those with an interest in both science and comedy.
- #92
humanino
- 2,523
- 8
this is long. But then it's better
Algebraists do it by symbolic manipulation.
Algebraic geometers do it for variety.
Algebraic geometers do it on the cubic three-fold.
Algebraists do it in a ring.
Algebraists do it in fields.
Algebraists do it in groups.
Algebraists do it with multiple roots.
Analysts do it continuously.
Analysts do it smoothly.
Analytic number theorists do it in the critical strip.
Analytic number theorists do it on the critical line.
Applied mathematicians do it by computer simulation.
Banach spacers do it completely.
Bayesians do it with improper priors.
Catastrophe theorists do it falling off part of a sheet.
Chaoticians do it with sensitive dependence
Class field theorists do it by capitulation.
Classical geometers do it on the Euler line.
Classical geometers do it on the nine-point circle.
Combinatorialists do it discretely.
Commutative algebraists do it regularly.
Complex analysts do it between the sheets
Complex analysts do it under a universal cover.
Constructivists do it without excluding the middle.
Decision theorists do it optimally.
Differential analysts do it in a degenerate case.
Functional analysts do it with compact support.
Functional analysts do it with degenerate colonels.
Galois theorists do it in a field.
Game theorists do it by dominance or saddle points.
Geometers do it with involutions.
Graph theorists do it discretely.
Graph theorists do it in four colours.
Group theorists do it simply.
Group theorists do it with the Monster.
Hilbert spacers do it orthogonally.
Large cardinals do it inaccessibly.
Linear programmers do it with nearest neighbors.
Logicians do it by choice.
Logicians do it consistently and completely.
Logicians do it incompletely or inconsistently.
Logicians do it with Jensen's device.
(Logicians do it) or [not (logicians do it)].
Mathematicians do it associatively.
Mathematicians do it by numbers.
Mathematicians do it commutatively.
Mathematicians do it constantly.
Mathematicians do it continuously.
Mathematicians do it discretely.
Mathematicians do it exponentially.
Mathematicians do it forever if they can do one and can do one more.
Mathematicians do it functionally.
Mathematicians do it homologically.
Mathematicians do it in fields.
Mathematicians do it in groups.
Mathematicians do it in imaginary planes.
Mathematicians do it in n dimensions.
Mathematicians do it in numbers.
Mathematicians do it in theory.
Mathematicians do it on smooth contours.
Mathematicians do it over and under the curves.
Mathematicians do it parallel and perpendicular.
Mathematicians do it partially.
Mathematicians do it rationally.
Mathematicians do it reflexively.
Mathematicians do it symmetrically.
Mathematicians do it to prove themselves.
Mathematicians do it to their limits.
Mathematicians do it totally.
Mathematicians do it transcendentally.
Mathematicians do it transitively.
Mathematicians do it variably.
Mathematicians do it with a Minkowski sausage.
Mathematicians do it with imaginary parts.
Mathematicians do it with linear pairs.
Mathematicians do it with Nobel's wife.
Mathematicians do it with odd functions.
Mathematicians do it with prime roots.
Mathematicians do it with relations.
Mathematicians do it with rings.
Mathematicians do it with their real parts.
Mathematicians do it without limit.
Mathematicians do over an open unmeasurable interval.
Mathematicians have to prove they did it.
Mathematicians do it ad infinitum.
Mathematicians do it at the right angle.
Measure theorists do it almost everywhere.
Measure theorists do it almost nowhere.
Moebius always does it on the same side.
Number theorists do it perfectly.
Number theorists do it rationally.
Number theorists do it in the critical strip.
Pure mathematicians do it rigorously.
Real analysts do it almost everywhere
Real analysts do it uniformly.
Ring theorists do it non-commutatively.
Set theorists do it in a morass.
Set theorists do it with cardinals.
Topologists do it in multiply connected domains
Topologists do it on rubber sheets.
Topos theorists do it pointlessly.
Mathematicians do it with primality.
MATHEMATICIANS do it as a finite sum of an infinite series
MATHEMATICIANS do it as continuous function
MATHEMATICIANS do it in imaginary domain
MATHEMATICIANS do it with formulæ
MATHEMATICIANS prove they did it
MATHEMATICIANS take it to the limit
credit : Chris Morton collected those
Algebraists do it by symbolic manipulation.
Algebraic geometers do it for variety.
Algebraic geometers do it on the cubic three-fold.
Algebraists do it in a ring.
Algebraists do it in fields.
Algebraists do it in groups.
Algebraists do it with multiple roots.
Analysts do it continuously.
Analysts do it smoothly.
Analytic number theorists do it in the critical strip.
Analytic number theorists do it on the critical line.
Applied mathematicians do it by computer simulation.
Banach spacers do it completely.
Bayesians do it with improper priors.
Catastrophe theorists do it falling off part of a sheet.
Chaoticians do it with sensitive dependence
Class field theorists do it by capitulation.
Classical geometers do it on the Euler line.
Classical geometers do it on the nine-point circle.
Combinatorialists do it discretely.
Commutative algebraists do it regularly.
Complex analysts do it between the sheets
Complex analysts do it under a universal cover.
Constructivists do it without excluding the middle.
Decision theorists do it optimally.
Differential analysts do it in a degenerate case.
Functional analysts do it with compact support.
Functional analysts do it with degenerate colonels.
Galois theorists do it in a field.
Game theorists do it by dominance or saddle points.
Geometers do it with involutions.
Graph theorists do it discretely.
Graph theorists do it in four colours.
Group theorists do it simply.
Group theorists do it with the Monster.
Hilbert spacers do it orthogonally.
Large cardinals do it inaccessibly.
Linear programmers do it with nearest neighbors.
Logicians do it by choice.
Logicians do it consistently and completely.
Logicians do it incompletely or inconsistently.
Logicians do it with Jensen's device.
(Logicians do it) or [not (logicians do it)].
Mathematicians do it associatively.
Mathematicians do it by numbers.
Mathematicians do it commutatively.
Mathematicians do it constantly.
Mathematicians do it continuously.
Mathematicians do it discretely.
Mathematicians do it exponentially.
Mathematicians do it forever if they can do one and can do one more.
Mathematicians do it functionally.
Mathematicians do it homologically.
Mathematicians do it in fields.
Mathematicians do it in groups.
Mathematicians do it in imaginary planes.
Mathematicians do it in n dimensions.
Mathematicians do it in numbers.
Mathematicians do it in theory.
Mathematicians do it on smooth contours.
Mathematicians do it over and under the curves.
Mathematicians do it parallel and perpendicular.
Mathematicians do it partially.
Mathematicians do it rationally.
Mathematicians do it reflexively.
Mathematicians do it symmetrically.
Mathematicians do it to prove themselves.
Mathematicians do it to their limits.
Mathematicians do it totally.
Mathematicians do it transcendentally.
Mathematicians do it transitively.
Mathematicians do it variably.
Mathematicians do it with a Minkowski sausage.
Mathematicians do it with imaginary parts.
Mathematicians do it with linear pairs.
Mathematicians do it with Nobel's wife.
Mathematicians do it with odd functions.
Mathematicians do it with prime roots.
Mathematicians do it with relations.
Mathematicians do it with rings.
Mathematicians do it with their real parts.
Mathematicians do it without limit.
Mathematicians do over an open unmeasurable interval.
Mathematicians have to prove they did it.
Mathematicians do it ad infinitum.
Mathematicians do it at the right angle.
Measure theorists do it almost everywhere.
Measure theorists do it almost nowhere.
Moebius always does it on the same side.
Number theorists do it perfectly.
Number theorists do it rationally.
Number theorists do it in the critical strip.
Pure mathematicians do it rigorously.
Real analysts do it almost everywhere
Real analysts do it uniformly.
Ring theorists do it non-commutatively.
Set theorists do it in a morass.
Set theorists do it with cardinals.
Topologists do it in multiply connected domains
Topologists do it on rubber sheets.
Topos theorists do it pointlessly.
Mathematicians do it with primality.
MATHEMATICIANS do it as a finite sum of an infinite series
MATHEMATICIANS do it as continuous function
MATHEMATICIANS do it in imaginary domain
MATHEMATICIANS do it with formulæ
MATHEMATICIANS prove they did it
MATHEMATICIANS take it to the limit
credit : Chris Morton collected those
- #93
The Binary Monster
- 30
- 0
A proton walks into a bar. It drifts slowly over to the bartender and says "Hey, I'm a proton!"
The incredulous bartender looks up and asks "Are you sure?"
"Yes," replies the proton, "I'm positive!"
The incredulous bartender looks up and asks "Are you sure?"
"Yes," replies the proton, "I'm positive!"
- #94
poolwin2001
- 179
- 0
Teacher is teaching a calculus class and demonstrates by giving an example:
lim_{x\rightarrow 8}<br /> \frac{1}{x-8}=\infty <br />
Tells johny to do this
lim_{x\rightarrow 5}<br /> \frac{1}{x-5}=?
Johny writes |_|-|(5 inverted by 90 degrees)
lim_{x\rightarrow 8}<br /> \frac{1}{x-8}=\infty <br />
Tells johny to do this
lim_{x\rightarrow 5}<br /> \frac{1}{x-5}=?
Johny writes |_|-|(5 inverted by 90 degrees)
- #95
poolwin2001
- 179
- 0
a nuetron goes shopping ,when he is about to pay the bill,shopkeeper refuses and says 'for you no charge'
- #96
Smurf
- 442
- 3
Think there's a reason I don't get any of these?
- #97
humanino
- 2,523
- 8
Smurf : You are not a geek ?
Poolwin : the inverted 5 is hilarious !
Poolwin : the inverted 5 is hilarious !
- #98
Smurf
- 442
- 3
The rotated 5 was one that confused me the most
- #99
The Bob
- 1,126
- 0
Smurf said:
Well the eight has been rotated to make the infinitie sign, therefore a 5 rotated is |_|-|. See?
The Bob (2004 ©)
P.S. Very funny.
- #100
Smurf
- 442
- 3
right. Someone explain the |_|-|
No really, what is it?
No really, what is it?
- #101
humanino
- 2,523
- 8
It is supposed to represent a rotated 5, which has not (yet !) any asigned meaning in math.
If x is arbitrarily close to 8, then x-8 is arbitrarily close to zero, and \frac{1}{x-8} is arbitrarily large, that is \frac{1}{x-8} goes to ininity, which is represented by \infty. Apparently the guy did not know what \infty meant, so he interpreted the sign as a rotated eight. Naturally for him then \frac{1}{x-5} must go to rotated 5 when x is arbitrarily close to five. As you can see of course, the answer was the same : \frac{1}{x-5} must go to \infty too when x is close to five...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers in Fairbanks Alaska announced last week that they have discovered a superconductor which will operate at room temperature.
If x is arbitrarily close to 8, then x-8 is arbitrarily close to zero, and \frac{1}{x-8} is arbitrarily large, that is \frac{1}{x-8} goes to ininity, which is represented by \infty. Apparently the guy did not know what \infty meant, so he interpreted the sign as a rotated eight. Naturally for him then \frac{1}{x-5} must go to rotated 5 when x is arbitrarily close to five. As you can see of course, the answer was the same : \frac{1}{x-5} must go to \infty too when x is close to five...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers in Fairbanks Alaska announced last week that they have discovered a superconductor which will operate at room temperature.
- #102
Smurf
- 442
- 3
Right. I see it now. Not laughing but at least it makes sense.
=p
=p
- #103
- 8,213
- 2,651
The physicists and engineers at MIT faced off in a football game.
It was nearing the end of the 4th quarter and no one had scored. When a local factory whistle blew, the physicists assumed this was the game whistle; that the length of the game was only approximate, and in spite of the clock, the game was over. They left the field. The engineers executed the next seven plays perfectly but still had to settle with a field goal to win.
It was nearing the end of the 4th quarter and no one had scored. When a local factory whistle blew, the physicists assumed this was the game whistle; that the length of the game was only approximate, and in spite of the clock, the game was over. They left the field. The engineers executed the next seven plays perfectly but still had to settle with a field goal to win.
Last edited:
- #104
humanino
- 2,523
- 8
A physicist is walking in the street, hungry. He sees a bakery sign in a window, so gets in the shop, owned by a mathematician and asks for bread. The mathematician replies : "But we just sell signs" 
I think it was from Zee's Nutshell
I think it was from Zee's Nutshell
- #105
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,207
- 25
Every now and then, I use vi. 
Don't laugh !
That wasn't a joke !
Don't laugh !
That wasn't a joke !- #106
humanino
- 2,523
- 8
I use only vi. No shame. I also use pine. At least I know what I'm doing 
- #107
Argentum Vulpes
The U.S. standard railroad gauge (distance between the rails) is 4 feet, 8.5 inches. That is an exceptionally odd number.
Now, why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the U.S. Railroads were built by English expatriates.
Why did the English build them that way? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
So why did the wagons have that particular odd spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.
So, who built those old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe (and England) were built by Imperial Rome for their legions. The roads have been used ever since.
And the ruts in the roads? The ruts in the roads, which everyone had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels, were first formed by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for (or by) Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
The U.S. standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Specifications and bureaucracies live forever. So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's a** came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back end of two war horses. Thus we have the answer to the original question.
Now the twist to the story... When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two booster rockets attached to the side of the main fuel tank. These are Solid Rocket Boosters or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory had to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses' behinds. So, the major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's a**!
Don't you just love engineering?
Now, why was that gauge used? Because that's the way they built them in England, and the U.S. Railroads were built by English expatriates.
Why did the English build them that way? Because the first rail lines were built by the same people who built the pre-railroad tramways, and that's the gauge they used.
Why did "they" use that gauge then? Because the people who built the tramways used the same jigs and tools that they used for building wagons, which used that wheel spacing.
So why did the wagons have that particular odd spacing? Well, if they tried to use any other spacing, the wagon wheels would break on some of the old, long distance roads in England, because that's the spacing of the wheel ruts.
So, who built those old rutted roads? The first long distance roads in Europe (and England) were built by Imperial Rome for their legions. The roads have been used ever since.
And the ruts in the roads? The ruts in the roads, which everyone had to match for fear of destroying their wagon wheels, were first formed by Roman war chariots. Since the chariots were made for (or by) Imperial Rome, they were all alike in the matter of wheel spacing.
The U.S. standard railroad gauge of 4 feet, 8.5 inches derives from the original specification for an Imperial Roman war chariot. Specifications and bureaucracies live forever. So, the next time you are handed a specification and wonder what horse's a** came up with it, you may be exactly right, because the Imperial Roman war chariots were made just wide enough to accommodate the back end of two war horses. Thus we have the answer to the original question.
Now the twist to the story... When we see a Space Shuttle sitting on its launch pad, there are two booster rockets attached to the side of the main fuel tank. These are Solid Rocket Boosters or SRBs. The SRBs are made by Thiokol at their factory in Utah. The engineers who designed the SRBs might have preferred to make them a bit fatter, but the SRBs had to be shipped by train from the factory to the launch site. The railroad line from the factory had to run through a tunnel in the mountains. The tunnel is slightly wider than the railroad track, and the railroad track is about as wide as two horses' behinds. So, the major design feature of what is arguably the world's most advanced transportation system was determined over two thousand years ago by the width of a horse's a**!
Don't you just love engineering?
- #108
Argentum Vulpes
Imparcticle said:
You forgot one
Engineer- the glass is two time its over the necessary design parameters
- #109
- 8,213
- 2,651
In physics we learn that a horse is approximately a sphere.
- #110
Gokul43201
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 7,207
- 25
Cows too...according to the joke that ends with the physicist solving the low milk-yield problem saying : "Assume all cows are spherical..."
- #111
physicsuser
- 82
- 1
Argentum Vulpes said:
- #112
- 10,876
- 423
About 7 years ago, David Letterman invited a few people to his show, to tell jokes that would only be understood by a very small number of people. I still remember the mathematician's joke, because I actually understood how bad it was:
Professor: Can you give me an example of a compact topological space?
Student: The real numbers.
(Silence)
Professor: With what topology?
Professor: Can you give me an example of a compact topological space?
Student: The real numbers.
(Silence)
Professor: With what topology?
- #113
omin
- 187
- 1
Here's one I heard from Steven Wright:
In the middle of a job interview, I pulled out a book and started reading. The guy interviewing me said, "What are you doing?" I said, "Can I ask you a question?" He said yes. "If you're traveling at the speed of light in your car through space and you turned on you headlights, would they work?" He said, "I don't know". I said, I don't want to work for you and walked out.
In the middle of a job interview, I pulled out a book and started reading. The guy interviewing me said, "What are you doing?" I said, "Can I ask you a question?" He said yes. "If you're traveling at the speed of light in your car through space and you turned on you headlights, would they work?" He said, "I don't know". I said, I don't want to work for you and walked out.
- #114
Flying Penguin
- 22
- 0
- #115
Evo
Staff Emeritus
- 24,029
- 3,323
That's the joke, unfortunately a lot of people believed the information about the rail spacing and now this misinformation is posted all over the internet as fact. There is a bit of truth to the rockets having to fit through the tunnel though.Flying Penguin said:
- #116
^_^
- 6
- 0
I'm new so be nice.
I don't know if you've heard this before but...
A cave boy lived with his family in their cave next to the Hamilton family. Every day the cave boy would ride to school with the Hamilton boy until one day he came home and his mother said, "Son, if you commute with a Hamiltonian you're never going to evolve."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
I don't know if you've heard this before but...
A cave boy lived with his family in their cave next to the Hamilton family. Every day the cave boy would ride to school with the Hamilton boy until one day he came home and his mother said, "Son, if you commute with a Hamiltonian you're never going to evolve."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
- #117
poolwin2001
- 179
- 0
I made this one up today while having lunch( 
I am vegetarian)
Q:Why did Dracula go to the circus?
A:Because,he wanted to get to the juggler!(jugular)?
I am vegetarian)Q:Why did Dracula go to the circus?
A:Because,he wanted to get to the juggler!(jugular)?
- #118
lucifer
- 15
- 0
more of a math joke and most people've already heard it. anyways, here goes:
At New York's Kennedy International Airport today, an individual, later discovered to be a public school teacher, was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator.
Attorney General John Ashcroft believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement. He is being charged with carrying weapons of math instruction.
"Al-gebra is a very fearsome cult, indeed," Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on a tangent in a search of absolute value. They consist of quite shadowy figures, with names like "X" and "Y ", and, although they are frequently referred to as "unknowns", we know they really belong to a common denominator and are part of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the great Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, "there are 3 sides to every triangle."
When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have weapons of math instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes".
At New York's Kennedy International Airport today, an individual, later discovered to be a public school teacher, was arrested trying to board a flight while in possession of a ruler, a protractor, a setsquare, a slide rule, and a calculator.
Attorney General John Ashcroft believes the man is a member of the notorious Al-gebra movement. He is being charged with carrying weapons of math instruction.
"Al-gebra is a very fearsome cult, indeed," Ashcroft said. "They desire average solutions by means and extremes, and sometimes go off on a tangent in a search of absolute value. They consist of quite shadowy figures, with names like "X" and "Y ", and, although they are frequently referred to as "unknowns", we know they really belong to a common denominator and are part of the axis of medieval with coordinates in every country. As the great Greek philanderer Isosceles used to say, "there are 3 sides to every triangle."
When asked to comment on the arrest, President Bush said, "If God had wanted us to have weapons of math instruction, He would have given us more fingers and toes".
- #119
Moonbear
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 11,919
- 54
lucifer said:
I hadn't heard that one before...it's hysterical! I love it! - #120
- 8,213
- 2,651
On the show "Planets", currently showing on the Science Channel (SCI), a review of the Voyager projects is presented and well worth the watch. From that show...
When the head of NASA was commenting on the rare alignment of the gas giants that made the Voyager project possible, he said: "The last time this happened, Thomas Jefferson was President, and he blew it!"
When the head of NASA was commenting on the rare alignment of the gas giants that made the Voyager project possible, he said: "The last time this happened, Thomas Jefferson was President, and he blew it!"
Similar threads
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 32 ·
- · Replies 3 ·
- · Replies 2 ·
- · Replies 3 ·
- · Replies 18 ·
- · Replies 1 ·
- · Replies 21 ·