The following is an actual question given on a University of
Washington chemistry mid term.
The answer by one student was so "profound" that the professor shared
it with colleagues, via the Internet, which is, of course, why we now
have the pleasure of enjoying it as well:
Bonus Question: Is Hell exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic
(absorbs heat)?
Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law
(gas cools when it expands and heats when it is compressed) or some
variant.
One student, however, wrote the following:
First, we need to know how the mass of Hell is changing in time. So we
need to know the rate at which souls are moving into Hell and the rate
at which they are leaving. I think that we can safely assume that once
a soul gets to Hell, it will not leave. Therefore, no souls are
leaving. As for how many souls are entering Hell, let's look at the
different religions that exist in the world today.
Most of these religions state that if you are not a member of their
religion, you will go to Hell. Since there is more than one of these
religions and since people do not belong to more than one religion, we
can project that all souls go to Hell. With birth and death rates as
they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase
exponentially. Now, we look at the rate of change of the volume in
Hell because Boyle's Law states that in order for the temperature and
pressure in Hell to stay the same, the volume of Hell has to expand
proportionately as souls are added.
This gives two possibilities:
1. If Hell is expanding at a slower rate than the rate at which souls
enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase
until all Hell breaks loose.
2. If Hell is expanding at a rate faster than the increase of souls in
Hell, then the temperature and pressure will drop until Hell freezes
over.
So which is it?
If we accept the postulate given to me by Teresa during my Freshman
year that, "It will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you,"
and take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then
number two must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is exothermic
and has already fr ozen over. The corollary of this theory is that
since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any
more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby
proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last
night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."
THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+!
On May 19, 10:49 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
SNIP of legend
> more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby
> proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last
> night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."
>
> THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+!
I don't know if this oldie but goodie was dusted off as a troll, to
amuse, or as a mistake. Funny story, but......
http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp
Go ahead... clickit... you know what's coming.
Hey, I gave Tom the benefit of a doubt, right? I think that makes me
tolerant. Or human...
Robert
Tom Watson wrote:
> On Mon, 19 May 2008 22:20:18 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> It takes a special kind of mind to take a humorous post and turn it
> into something boring.
>
> Congratulations.
In his defense - it wasn't really ALL that humorous...
On May 19, 6:54 pm, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> I intentionally did not do Snopes because I appreciated the argument
> so much.
>
> Does the fact that Snopes found a previous incarnation detract from
> the beauty of the argument?
Well Tom, if you want to take me to task, let's take a quick look.
You did not post this load of crap as a myth, amusing anecdote, or
funny story. In fact, you wrote:
>The following is an actual question given on a >University of Washington chemistry mid term.
presenting this as a truthful post on your behalf.
I took "actual" as meaning it happened in this case, but you might
have an alternate meaning.
Please elucidate your current meaning of "actual" if it differs from a
representation of the truth or a fact.
To wrap it up, you wrote (or in your case, copied and pasted)
> THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+!
All in caps to help accentuate the irony, written as a comment as if
to punctuate it further.
Never once did you cite, reference, allude to, or hint that the story
was a total falsehood. Now it sounds like you knew it was a lie all
along. For someone that loves to correct people on their misuse or
misunderstanding of facts as YOU interpret them, I was surprised that
you would attempt to pass that off as a true story.
For many here that don't know you, without the proper acknowledgment
as to the origin of the piece, they probably concluded that fib as
told by you to be the truth.
> If Snopes found a previous incarnation of: All Men Are Mortal -
> Socarates Is a Man - Therefore Socrates Is Mortal - would that make
> any difference to the argument?
I know, I know. And is God so powerful that he himself could create a
rock so large he himself could not lift it?*
Clever line, but irrelevant. You posted a load of baloney, I gave
your integrity the benefit of the doubt on it, and it wasn't
necessary. As I see now, it wasn't a mistake at all.
> What is your great point?
At the first response, there was none other than to see if you fell
into something unknowingly. A clever premise backed by humorous and
ironic writing can be quite entertaining and grow legs of its own.
Keeping that in mind, my gently worded response didn't call you out
into an untenable position for being deceptive or at the least, too
lazy to check on the source. I did give you the benefit of a doubt.
Actually, I see now that was indeed pointless.
Robert
* attrib: George Carlin
(See above? That's how it's done. You don't knowingly take credit
for the work of others. Bad form, old boy.)
On Mon, 19 May 2008 22:20:18 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
It takes a special kind of mind to take a humorous post and turn it
into something boring.
Congratulations.
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
On May 20, 5:54 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
And the winner of the straw man award goes to:
>
> Congratulations.
>
> Tom Watson
Robert
On May 20, 10:08 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
> You're circling the bowl for a final time.............bye bye.
>
> Tom Watson
> tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnetwww.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1
Run little Tommy, run!
Robert
I intentionally did not do Snopes because I appreciated the argument
so much.
Does the fact that Snopes found a previous incarnation detract from
the beauty of the argument?
If Snopes found a previous incarnation of: All Men Are Mortal -
Socarates Is a Man - Therefore Socrates Is Mortal - would that make
any difference to the argument?
What is your great point?
.On Mon, 19 May 2008 15:21:36 -0700 (PDT), "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>On May 19, 10:49 am, Tom Watson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>SNIP of legend
>
>> more souls and is therefore, extinct......leaving only Heaven, thereby
>> proving the existence of a divine being which explains why, last
>> night, Teresa kept shouting "Oh my God."
>>
>> THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+!
>
>I don't know if this oldie but goodie was dusted off as a troll, to
>amuse, or as a mistake. Funny story, but......
>
> http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp
>
>Go ahead... clickit... you know what's coming.
>
>Hey, I gave Tom the benefit of a doubt, right? I think that makes me
>tolerant. Or human...
>
>Robert
Tom Watson
tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet
www.home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1