This is for all the PROFOUND thinkers on the Forum!

[classicrockgriller]

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. < /P>
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 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.'

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED AN A+.

[smokeitall]

That is pretty funny CRG  :D
SIA

[classicrockgriller]

Actually when I read this all I could think of was Caney! ;D

[KevinG]

I guess that means I can be a bad boy, and not have to worry about it anymore.  8)

[classicrockgriller]

I guess that means I can be a bad boy, and not have to worry about it anymore.  8)

What the hey! If you have had a profound thought, this is for you too.

The lesson is not what was said, but how the thought of someone's Idea thinking it.

[Kummok]

Not so profound, methinks....although humorous, it makes me highly skeptical of the credibility of chemists with a UW degree (and professors w/ UW tenure!) if this student actually received an A+?!?!? Perhaps in art/history/philosophy class, this question/answer could fly, but the question and its sophomoric response, although achieving the humor intended, would have received an 'F' in science classes I've taught at the college level. E.G.: "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." incorrectly and w/o justifying, merely assumes that no religion is "correct" when, in fact, simple logic dictates the possibility that at least one could be correct, defeating his conclusion that none are. The student (and the professor's A+ grade) exemplify the kind of the "throw the baby out with the bathwater" approach of typical liberal university logic.  If this is a genuine event, it explains a lot about why the UW students that I know won't engage in discussions of pure logic or science but are really fun at parties...and about why the clear SCIENCE of weather can become the muddy politics (and religion!) of global warming...  ;)

OK, OK....probably more serious a response than you'd intended, CRG but at least you've discovered one of my "buttons"....liberal professors involved with the teaching of science!  ::)

[hal4uk]

Kummok, while we're really thinking this through...

The followup to the "all souls go to hell" conclusion is also faulty:
"With birth and death rates as they are, we can expect the number of souls in Hell to increase exponentially"

Populations, while they do increase exponentially, will always, at some point, die off in great numbers as a result of A) famine, or B) disease.  In the case of human populations, we must also consider C) the (perhaps nuclear) war factor.  Furthermore, if we ignorantly assume that B and C will never occur, the earth's surface area is constant (disregarding statistically insignificant disruptions of its crust), thus it cannot support an ever-increasing population.  See (A).

So, yeah...  A+ in the progressive wine and cheese club.  F in science.

[Caneyscud]

WHATTTTT!!!!!!!!!!!!

There are only 8 planets and not 9????????????????????????????  This world/country is going to hell in a handbasket.  Therefore, since the world's souls going to hell can fit in a handbasket, the whole premise of hell expanding cannot exist or at least the effect would be so minimal to be non-measurable by current instrumentation.  Besides the last time I checked I did not think souls had mass!  And since Harry, Malone, Kid, and my boss gives everybody (or at least me) hell, hell must be contracting.   Using Bialobjeski-Eddington's formula, it is possible to predict the changes of radii and luminosities of massive stars in different stages of their contractive evolution. It is shown that at a certain stage of contraction the star must reach the maximum of its luminosity.  Correlating the formula to hill, It is to be expected that for such high values of the (luminosity)/(mass) ratio, radiation pressure becomes strong enough to eject stellar atmospheres into the surrounding space, and it can be shown that the ejection will actually take place if the force of gravity on hell's stellar surface will be somewhat reduced by the centrifugal force due to axial rotation. And we all know that in discussing the motion of the ejected gases, it may be necessary to know that only CRG passes gases, with peak emission on jalapeno mornings while riding a merry-go-round with his stellar surface is exposed!!  --  Just don't tell Teresa!

BTW, a nocturnal dream about Teresa bedding down with the student, doesn't really cut it on the scientific front either.  To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on gathering observable, empirical,and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning.   Other factors require the process to be objective thereby reducing biased interpretations of the results. Another basic expectation is to document, archive and share all data and methodology so they are available for careful scrutiny by other scientists, thereby allowing other researchers the opportunity to verify results by attempting to reproduce them.  These steps must be repeatable!  Therefore my hypothesis, statistical measures of the reliability of the data collected (none), and conclusion are all the same - It didn't happen - No pics - it didn't happen - repeatable (Teresa is a tease, but not stupid).   My finding would lead one to believe that Teresa would not make the mistake once, much less twice - the repeatability of the data in his court as well as data is non-existant so non-reproducible.  Case closed!  Besides Teresa's objectivity would be called into question, and I see no need to do that as - remember the definition - results must be measurable, and I'm not going there!!   ;D

Hell doesn't even enter into the equation - the question is bogus, and the student would have received an F-!  However in Caney's Doctorate of Pontification Class, the student's corollary and his method of verbosity, would rate at least a B.  More hot air would have raised the grade to an A. 

Caveat - Would Caney be the only person that wonders if you could Low-n-Slow in hell - what with the high ambient temperature and all?

[Tiny Tim]

Heck, all I care about is that I got Teresa and passed the course......... ;D ;D

[Kummok]

Heck, all I care about is that I got Teresa and passed the course......... ;D ;D

OK TT, you're REALLY Bill Clinton in real life aren't you?!?!?   ;)

s/ Eddie Bialobjeski

Note to Caney, re: "Caveat - Would Caney be the only person that wonders if you could Low-n-Slow in hell - what with the high ambient temperature and all?"
That's one Crock Pot that this cold ol' Alaskan doesn't intend to stew in!  ;D ;D

[Caneyscud]

Note to Caney, re: "Caveat - Would Caney be the only person that wonders if you could Low-n-Slow in hell - what with the high ambient temperature and all?"
That's one Crock Pot that this cold ol' Alaskan doesn't intend to stew in!  ;D ;D

I totally agree!

[FLBentRider]

Note to Caney, re: "Caveat - Would Caney be the only person that wonders if you could Low-n-Slow in hell - what with the high ambient temperature and all?"
That's one Crock Pot that this cold ol' Alaskan doesn't intend to stew in!  ;D ;D

I totally agree!

A M E N !!