• Three scientists were discussing over a newspaper article..
First: These policemen.. They never catch the right crook..
Second: They have no logic.. They should use more logical and scientific methods of investigation..
Third: No, No! my dear friends.. They have been using the scientific principle all the time! And that's the reason for their failure..
First & Second: What? What do you mean?
Third: Why, its quite clear, my friends! They use the uncertainty principle for investigation! Poor chaps, they find the crook's momentum exactly, but then they just cannot locate him anywhere! If they successfully locate him at any moment of time, they just can't say, which way he would head off to next second!   [From :: The Webmaster, Pradeepzone ]


•»»  Below are really some funny one liners & jokes I read from Science humor collection by Joachim Verhagen http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes :: The Webmaster , Pradeepzone

[Some Taglines Originally From: joeshmoe#NoSpam.world.std.com (Jascha Franklin-Hodge)]
» "Apple" (c) 6024 b.c., Adam & Eve
» "Apple" (c) Copyright 1767, Sir Isaac Newton.

» "The faster you go, the shorter you are" - Einstein

» Black holes really suck...

» All that glitters has a high refractive index.

» Friction can be a drag sometimes.

» Going the speed of light is bad for your age.

» Gravity: Not just a good idea...it's the LAW.

» How many weeks are there in a light year?

» Power corrupts, but we need electricity.

» Resistance Is Useless!* (*If < 1 ohm)

» Supernovae are a Blast

» Formula: "Energy equals milk chocolate square"

• Mrs. Schrödinger to Mr. Schrödinger: What the hell did you do to the cat? It looks half dead!

• Sign on a railroad station:
These railroads are subject to Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle: Position
and Velocity of a given train can not be specified at the same time.
-- Sydney Harris Cartoon

• Tag-line on UseNet messages:
This message was written entirely with recycled electrons.

(Originally From: "Jay Billings" <jay.billings#NoSpam.verizon.net>)
» What did the neutrino say to the earth?
   :: "Just passing through.."

» Popular bumper sticker among the folks at the US National Air and Space
Museum where they have a display with a prototype of the Hubble telescope lens:: (The Bumper sticker is Red with white letters.)
"If this is blue you're going too fast."

» (originally From: Gary Edstrom <gedstrom#NoSpam.pacbell.net> [from Science humor collection by Joachim Verhagen (sciencejokes@xs4all.nl)])
Wanted: Good home for abused cat :
The Humane Society has placed up for adoption a lovable cat that was recently removed from the laboratory of a noted physicist. The animal was abused repeatedly, having been exposed to poisonous gas and also being placed in close proximity to radio activity. Cruel experiments like this can not be tolerated. The owner has been charged with numerous counts of animal cruelty. Dr. Schrödinger's cat is recovering nicely, however.

»» The Big Question::  Why did the chicken cross the road?
Heisenberg:
A:: We are not sure which side of the road the chicken was on, but it was moving very fast.
Newton:
1) Chickens at rest tend to stay at rest. Chickens in motion tend to cross the road.
2) It was pushed on the road.
3) It was pushed on the road by another chicken, which went away from
the road.
4) It was attracted to a chicken on the other side of the road.
I have not yet found the cause of this behavior of the chicken, based on
the phenomenon and I do not make hypotheses.
Pascal:
A:: It was "pressured" to cross the road.
Wolfgang Pauli: Chickens behave like Fermions. There already were two chicken on this side of the road.
Volta:
A:: The other side had more potential.
 [from Science humor collection by Joachim Verhagen (sciencejokes@xs4all.nl)]

»» A friend of mine has a theory about things electronic: they operate on
smoke. It is very important for each component to have the correct amount
of smoke, which is sealed inside at the factory. If this smoke ever gets
out, the part is no longer functional. This is true: how many times have
you ever seen an electrical or electronic device work right after smoke has
been emitted?   

»» NEWTON'S FOURTH LAW: Physicists get together regularly in unknown European
towns to make a group picture and disperse afterwards.
-- from a Sydney Harris Cartoon with picture of VII Plovdiv conferencene.

»» Once all the scientists die and go to heaven. They decide to play hide-n-seek.
Unfortunately Einstein is the one who has the den. He is supposed to count
upto 100 and then start searching. Everyone starts hiding except Newton.
Newton just draws a square of 1 meter and stands in it, right in front of
Einstein.
Einsteins counting ....97,98,99,100, opens his eyes and finds Newton
standing in front. Einstein says "Newtons out, Newton's out."

Newton denies and says I am not out. He claims that he is not Newton. All
the scientists come out and demand him to prove his claim.

His proof:
Newton says:
I am standing in a square of area 1m square..
That means I am Newton per meter square..
Hence I am Pascal, Not Newton!
Since newton per meter square = Pascal
 [From: Rick <tinkety_tonk#NoSpam.yahoo.com>]

»»
[From: tlanda#NoSpam.nwu.edu (Anthony S. Landa)]
The following is an excerpt from my physics lab book.  Needless
to say, it was a long day in the lab.
Errors in Calculations:
  ...Clearly, friction played a large role in our >75%<< error in our calculations, but the force of friction alone cannot affect much more than 5% of the experimental results.  After pondering other things that might have also affected the experiment, I came up with a couple things:

 1) Measurement of pi. We only used pi to 2 decimal places (3.14157 would have given more accurate results)

 2) The moon's gravitational effect.  We didn't take into effect the gravitational effect of the moon orbiting the earth.  If it can cause tides, it can affect our experiment.

 3) The book is wrong.  Who knows?  Newton lived a long time ago, before the Internet, and before highly sensitive electrical equipment. Perhaps all the equations we used are outdated and inaccurate.  I will write a letter to the publisher immediately when I can confirm this.

 4) Gravitational pull caused by us.  My lab partner and I both exert a very tiny, but significant, gravitational attraction.  This could have effected the pendulum in many ways, especially since we were moving around a lot.

 5) Inaccurate measurement of weight.  We never actually weighed the pendulum.  We just used the value in the book.

 6) Accumulation of dust.  During the course of the experiment, I noticed dust accumulating on the bob of the pendulum.  Oh, wait, frequency of a pendulum has nothing to do with mass.  Forget 5 and 6.

Well, seriously, these other potential pitfalls are still very
insignificant, so that leaves me with only one conclusion:

  My lab partner screwed up.

I take no responsibility for these errors, because I put faith in my
lab partner that he would solve the equations accurately.  In the
past, we have experienced problems with his inability to punch numbers
into his calculator in the correct order.  I also noticed him
furtively peeking over on the other lab tables.  Pardon my frankness,
but this guy is not very bright, and I don't know how I got stuck with
him.  I probably should just double check his work, but I'm sure he
would be insulted and create a scene.  I've had problems with him
in the past, and if the sole vindicator of our inaccurate lab data is,
in fact, my lab partner, this would explain the last three labs,
which, as you may recall, had errors similar in scope.
[From Science humor collection by Joachim Verhagen (sciencejokes@xs4all.nl) ]


»» THE PHYSICISTS' BILL OF RIGHTS:
(Author Unknown) We hold these postulates to be intuitively obvious,
that all physicists are born equal, to a first approximation, and are
endowed by their creator with certain discrete privileges, among them a
mean rest life, n degrees of freedom, and the following rights which are
invariant under all linear transformations:
1. To approximate all problems to ideal cases.
2. To use order of magnitude calculations whenever deemed necessary (i.e. whenever one can get away with it).
3. To use the rigorous method of "squinting" for solving problems more complex than the addition of positive real integers.
4. To dismiss all functions which diverge as "nasty" and "unphysical."
5. To invoke the uncertainty principle when confronted by confused mathematicians, chemists, engineers, psychologists, dramatists, and other lower scientists.
6. When pressed by non-physicists for an explanation of (4) to mumble in a sneering tone of voice something about physically naive mathematicians.
7. To equate two sides of an equation which are dimensionally inconsistent, with a suitable comment to the effect of, "Well, we are interested in the order of magnitude anyway."
8. To the extensive use of "bastard notations" where conventional mathematics will not work.
9. To invent fictitious forces to delude the general public.
10. To justify shaky reasoning on the basis that it gives the right answer.
11. To cleverly choose convenient initial conditions, using the principle of general triviality.
12. To use plausible arguments in place of proofs, and thenceforth refer to these arguments as proofs.
13. To take on faith any principle which seems right but cannot be proved.
[From Science humor collection by Joachim Verhagen (sciencejokes@xs4all.nl) ]