Hell Explained by a Chemistry Student...

I came across this on the Internet today -- it's just too good not to share here...

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 :


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 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+.

The Tea Partiers are Undermining Our Democracy

My intent is not to politicize this blog but, pondering the behavior of the Tea Partiers and other right wing nuts in response to the recently legislated health care reform bill, I feel it is necessary to pose this question: What is the value of a Democracy in which opponents of its legislated laws respond with threats, character defamation, and even violence?

When disagreement with a piece of legislation becomes an open invitation to threaten or harm those who supported it, when the hate-mongers throw bricks through windows, cut gas lines, and fire gunshots, they are mocking the very core of our Democracy. Furthermore, that such hate and disrespect for the legislative process is incited by certain neo-con blowhards on radio and television is unforgiveable and treasonous.

If our own Democracy is to be so wrought with domestic terrorism – and that is, really, what the actions of many of the opponents to the health care reform bill have become – how can we expect it to be a model of stability and freedom for those countries we are trying to force it upon?

"The Hurt Locker"

“In peace, sons bury their fathers; in war, fathers bury their sons.” (Herodotus)

Were it not for my desire to view at least one of the top nominees for this year’s Best Film Oscar – and that the relatively low-grossing “The Hurt Locker” was already available on my cable provider’s Pay-for-View – I likely would have never seen this movie.

As a rule, I don’t watch movies about war. Four years’ service in the military during the Vietnam War convinced me that all war is a senseless waste of human life. Period. There is nothing glorious about fighting a war. Movies that suggest war is about patriotism or power, quite simply, miss that point. Yet, unlikely as it may seem, I was rooting for “The Hurt Locker” to win the Best Film Oscar during last night’s Academy Awards.

In the weeks leading up to the Academy Awards, “The Hurt Locker” received much negative criticism for its lack of reality, for taking liberty with the facts to embellish the drama. Some even politicized the movie, saying it was an insult to our troops serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

These critics, however, missed the point of the film. It is not a documentary, nor was it intended to be one. Instead, the movie concerns itself with the psychology of fighting a war where the foe and the ally are indistinguishable from each other; where providence metes out life and death in seconds; where the rational is frequently a less-sound tactic for survival (mental and physical) than instinct. All of the facts in “The Hurt Locker” may not be accurate, but its message comes off quite clear: War is hell and should never be glorified. No one who has served in a combat zone will argue with that.

The Oscars for the movie, for its director (Kathryn Bigalow) and for its screenwriter (Mark Boal) are well-deserved. They got it right.