phys.ufl.edu — "While a pen always falls when you drop it on Earth, it would just float away if you let go of it on the Moon." My jaw dropped a little. I blurted "What?! A pen would fall if you dropped it on the Moon, just more slowly." I protested. "No it wouldn't." the TA explained calmly, "because you're too far away from the Earth's gravity."
Apr 26, 2009 View in Crawl 4
neilmcpheeApr 27, 2009
weight is subjective based upon the force of gravity, I think you meant to say that you have the same mass whether you're on the moon or on earth.
dustin00Apr 27, 2009
I wish it was text answer and not multiple choice... Bet we'd get some real good answers to laugh at then!
jtampsApr 27, 2009
Keep in mind at Madison Physics 111 is called "Physics for Artists"Engineers/Physics majors start at 201
miketwo345Apr 29, 2009
I bet she was great in bed. I know that type...
synbios16May 7, 2009
All objects in the universe are attracted to all other objects in the universe with a force that is directly proportional to the product of square of their masses and inversely proportional to distance between their centers of masses.All pulls all.
sorenbMay 14, 2009
it's what plants crave!
trigonometronMay 15, 2009
WTF
ripersnifleJun 28, 2009
I think you are an android whose sense of humor has been deleted.
brownr7Sep 23, 2009
Just came across this and I love reading the comments. I wrote the first half of this story back around 1988 and posted it on usenet (before the days of the web). The actual event in the philosophy class happened to me back in 1981 as a freshman at Madison. The story eventually made its way to the web (remarkably intact!) and the "More on the Burning Question..." was added later by someone else - so I can't verify its source. It rings true to me though.
honoredmuleOct 5, 2009
"Case and point: Religion claims that morality is contingent upon divine judgment. This flies in the face of everything that we have learned about morality through the science of social and behavioral biology among other fields."This is a faulty representation of both sides. - Morality is a man-made construct for developing and improving society--a balancing act founded on the concept of human rights/freedoms that maximizes the utility of those human rights/freedoms for all equally. - Christians reject the concept of "morality" (doing what society decides is right based on the assertion/assumption of human rights) entirely, in favor of the concept of "sin" (that which contradicts the character and instruction of the Creator). - Most other religions take some form of hybrid approach whereby they take a mix of allegedly divine instruction and personalized branch of morality based on the common social constructs. - Some religions, like Buddhism, base their value systems purely on an arbitrarily-defined morality with no claims to divine inspiration but rather to observed causality and observance of systems that generate an improvement in overall "good."Often these 'other' religions (which include many liberalized forms of Christianity with which you're likely more familiar) have the flexibility to define whatever standards suit their fancy, given that the two sources of rationale are polar opposites: one focused on number 1/self, the other focused on numbers 0 and 2/God and others. Sadly drawing from two antithetical foundations can lead to nothing but contradictions and hypocrisy. However, the claims of divine judgment or benefits of conforming to a Creator's intelligent design for society have absolutely nothing to do with morality--most credible religions make no connection between morality and divine judgment whatsoever, but rather between the latter and sin. And this is where science enters the discussion."There is no trend of pitting god against science."Sure there is, just like there's people like you claiming religion tries to link independently man-made and allegedly Creater-provided concepts. As others mentioned, religious adherants do not form any distinction between science and religion (except the crazies or totally irrational, of course) but rather see the two bodies of information as complimentary and in harmony with one another. Where conflict or contradiction arises, the religious choose a side to label as fallible--either the source/path of their divine instruction, or the *prevailing opinions* of scientific reality. Of course those prevailing opinions have shown themselves capable of being wrong just as much as was the case centuries ago, but we generally don't like to talk about that (lookup memristors and HP labs for a recent example of our science--the useful science upon which real-life computers are based and built--being significantly faulty).But every time someone says "the [infallible source] says this so your contradictory understanding of science is wrong" the general/athiest public responds "you're choosing your beliefs over science." Yet never is the response "your understanding of [infallible source] is wrong," or "you are adding to your [divine source] to suit your /personal/ beliefs." I've yet to see a single discussion between theists and atheists that doesn't boil down to the former simplification. If that's not "pitting god against science," I don't know what is. Theists are through this knee-jerk reaction generally considered the most biased parties in existence, though I question that assessment every time I meet an actual scientist. Without fail, that person has at least one theory between his teeth and is trying to make his (profitable) mark on the world by convincing others to accept that theory or his expansion of that theory. Conversely, most theists aren't anticipating any earthly prize for being right. The odd time they're at least more right or more detailed than prior understanding, the world benefits a litte. Personally, after assessing their average output, I'd rather take my chances founding a web startup.
honoredmuleOct 6, 2009
I'm Canadian and have lived on both coasts. I've never once heard someone refer to a shopping cart as a buggy, nor use the term in reference to those who retrieve them. Flashlight isn't a very good label either for a device that doesn't flash while in use, but rather stays on consistently. Also, taking a peak under a "bonnet" at least implies an interest in feminine charms. Looking under a "hood" isn't quite so reassuringly specific.However, you have to hand the Brits credit for being the only English-speaking nation that regularly uses the word "c**k" in ways that can easily be a quadruple-entendre (out of 5 common definitions: the male member, rooster, screw-up, arrogance, and careless or off-kilter).
yeghiaNov 12, 2009
This account has been closed by the user
marketingmannJan 18, 2010
Well then, I guess I won't be planting that garden on the moon like I was planning. Heck I thought the moon had a sixth of the gravity of earth and that's still gravity so nothing should remain floating.
diggorelseFeb 23, 2011
I remember when the first part of this was posted, exactly 19 years ago today--Feb 22, 1992--on rec.humor.funny. See http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/92q1/heavboots.html [credit: howell@psikey.dnet.nasa.gov (_2-D PHOTOMETRY)]
Adrian Melott, Associate Professor of Physics and Astronomy, University of Kansas gets credit for the follow-up part: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/92q1/heavboots.html
See also: http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/92q3/floatpen.html
Enjoy, but beware of the Brad.