CliveH Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 The following is supposedly 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. 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 Fresher Year that, "it will be a cold day in Hell before I sleep with you", then take into account the fact that I slept with her last night, then number 2 must be true! Therefore, I am sure that Hell is exothermic and has already frozen 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." (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Absolutely brilliant! (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Agreed, but why do I get the impression the same argument would work for Global Warming (you work it out!)? ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Probably because the same source may well have applied the same theory to both Hell and to GW simultaneously in the undoubtedly successful ploy of fooling some very clever men like Mr President GW (coincidence?) Bush and Teflon Tony, amongst others. I bet he didn't bank on Grasping Gordon jumping on the taxation bandwagon though and now when all the other governments in the world see how successful Grasping has been on selling polultion taxes to a gullible UK electorate they too will be after a slice of the action? Cynical? Who - me? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Rich ... you really LIKE Gordon don't you, go on, I can tell, you just love mentioning his name at every opportunity! :-S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted April 11, 2007 Share Posted April 11, 2007 Is there anyone on here - is there anyone anywhere who thinks Gordon will make a good PM? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Newell Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Maybe he will, maybe he won't but we won't know for sure till he's got the job! D. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
foxy Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 there is no one in any party that will make a good prime minister. The nearest one ( sreaming Lord sutch) has gone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Dame Edna Everage comes to mind with Sir Les Patterson as foreign secretary, Ken Dodd as chancellor, Lord Archer as home secretary, and Jade Goody as education secretary? Any alternatives please - we should between us be able to find a truly wonderful cabinet selection? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveH Posted April 12, 2007 Author Share Posted April 12, 2007 What about Roy Ransom (Equitable Life Actuary responsible for the debacle that was the demise of the Equitable Life Assurance Society) as Minister for Europe (Europe being an awesome example of crooked accounting) - assisted by Ruth Kelly who covered up the Governments total ineptitude on the Equitable debacle. Also we could have Gary Glitter as Minister for Defence because I am certain he could shaft our young soldiers certainly as well as Geoff Hoon did with his inability to get to grips with the idea that body armour is not something that can be shared! Oh! and hell in my view would be the UK under Gordon Brown. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 For a moment I thought all this "Fantasy Cabinet League" stuff was off-thread, until I saw the connection in CliveH's last posting. But surely if we "Out&abouters" are anything, we're self-sufficient. We could easily run the country ourselves! Prime Minister: Mel B - to keep everyone else in order. Foreign Sec.: Brian Kirby (always tries to steer us towards a tolerant middle-course) Chancellor: starspirit (the only Chancellor in history to abolish ALL taxes, on EVERYTHING) Home Sec.: the Moderator - someone has to enforce the rules!! Social Security: Can we bring Frank back just for this? We need someone who won't put up with scroungers if Richard wants to keep to a zero-tax policy. Health Service: Michele - she knows more about what's wrong with it than any so-called "expert!" Education: Howie (bring back the 3-R's!) Any other suggestions?? Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 And how do you see your role Tony? Ministry of silly walks perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 The only flaw in your reasoning Tony seems to me to be that with Richard as Chancellor, and having abolished all Government income (i.e. taxes), there would be no point in having anyone else, as they'd have no money with which to do anything. All MPs sent home, ditto all doctors, nurses, teachers, soldiers, sailors, airmen, dustmen, policemen, warders, prisoners, civil and public servants, traffic lights menders, car park attendants, you name it!! (Anything in the foregoing imputing the male gender to be taken to impute also the female and, mutatis mutandis, neuter, genders!)He'd have to work for no salary as well! Ever seen a grown man cry? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tony Jones Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 I can see the problem. A government without any money couldn't do much good, could it? On the other hand, some people would point out that our "Fantasy Cabinet" would be a "hell" of a lot less dangerous if it didn't have any of our money! (notice cunning way of staying on thread) Tony Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 With no government and no civil service and no town halls bleeding the country dry we would not need taxation as we could all then afford to pay for whatever we need ourselves because without jobsworths and waste and ineptitude everything would become affordable again. Simple economics innit? Any volunteers care to join me in doing it for nowt to save the country from the living hell of Grasping in the high chair throwing his rattles all over the place and refusing to eat his food? Now that really does conjure up a pretty picture dunnit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Now, I still think you're missing the point a bit here, Richard. I mean it's very nice of you and all that, and offering to do it for nowt is very generous. Question is, do what, exactly? With no dosh, don't you think you might be a bit light on work? Even the courts would be empty, with no-one to pay the judges. No enforcers = no laws. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Exactly Brian - just like being retired only better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mel B Posted April 12, 2007 Share Posted April 12, 2007 Tony Jones - 2007-04-12 2:24 PM Prime Minister: Mel B - to keep everyone else in order. Thanks for the vote of confidence Tony but somehow I don't think I need the headache of trying to keep this lot in order!!! (lol) (lol) (lol) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest starspirit Posted April 13, 2007 Share Posted April 13, 2007 OOOOh Mel - one word from you and we would all melt into polite little good boys - or something? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.