NationStates Jolt Archive

The following is an actual question given on a University of Liverpool chemistry final exam.

The answer by one student was so “profound” that the professor shared it with colleagues via the Internet, which is 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 that 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 constant, the volume of Hell must 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 Sandra 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 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is endothermic 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 extinct…leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being - which explains why, last night, Sandra kept shouting “Oh my God.”

THIS STUDENT RECEIVED THE ONLY “A”.Yes, I believe so.

I also believe he died a few decades ago. Because this thingy is old ;)

It was funny back when I heard this in 1999, and continues to be. (And Snope (http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp)s says the meme dates back to the sixties.)

It was funny back when I heard this in 1999, and continues to be. (And Snope (http://www.snopes.com/college/exam/hell.asp)s says the meme dates back to the sixties.)I was bored. Digging around the old ''favorites''.

Yes, I believe so.

I heard a variation on that one before, but still good.

Here's the variation I've heard,

A thermodynamics professor wrote a take-home exam for his graduate students. It had one question: Is Hell Exothermic (gives off heat) or endothermic (absorbs heat)? Support your answer with a proof.

Most of the students wrote proofs of their beliefs using Boyle's Law (gas cools off when it expands and heats up 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 that souls are moving into Hell and the rate 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. Some of these religions state that if you are not a member of their religion, you will go to Hell. Since there are more then one of these religions and since people do not belong to more then more then one religion, we can project that all people and 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 as souls are added.

This gives two possibilities:
#1) If Hell is expanding at a slower rate then the rate at which souls enter Hell, then the temperature and pressure in Hell will increase until all Hell breaks loose.

#2) Of course, if Hell is expanding at a rate faster then 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 Ms. Therese Banyan during my Freshman year, that "it'll be a cold night in Hell before I sleep with you," and take into account the fact that I still have not succeeded in having sexual relations with her, then #2 cannot be true, and so Hell is exothermic.

The student got the only A.

Yours is better though, I think.

Yours is better though, I think.
Nah, your variation is better. It's misery which promotes deep thought, not enjoyment.

The teach shouldn't have awarded this student an 'A'.

why?
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. Mistake #1. the assumption that souls have mass. when a person dies, does the body get lighter? I think not. so the 'mass of Hell' should be unchanging
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. yet if this posit is correct, then there will be at least ONE religion that is right. thus not all souls will be going to Hell. Mistake #2
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 constant, the volume of Hell must expand proportionately as souls are added. again the assumption that souls have mass and thus weight and can affect 'volume'. considering that ghosts are also spirits and thus similar to souls, can travel through objects and can occupy the same space as objects is proof that spirits and thus, souls, do not have mass. add to that accounts of possesed people shows that spirits and souls can occuppy the same space as other spirits and souls means that you can fit an indefinate amount of spirts and souls in any given space.

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. Mistake #3, a presumption that Hell has a viable and physical boundary to break.

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. mistake #4 only two choices? there is a third choice that hell expands at a rate equal to the increase of souls thus the temperature and pressure remains constant. or hellishly boring. and a fourth choice is that hell expands in an inconsistant rate thus rendring hell to be hellishly unpredictable.

both Mistake 3 and 4 of course is connected to mistake #5. that Hell operates in the same manner as physical objects.

So which is it?

If we accept the postulate given to me by Sandra 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 2 must be true, and thus I am sure that Hell is endothermic and has already frozen over. a cold day in hell does not equate to hell freezing over. it only proves that hell is not in a consistant state of equality in temperature. Mistake #6

The corollary of this theory is that since Hell has frozen over, it follows that it is not accepting any more souls and is extinct…leaving only Heaven, thereby proving the existence of a divine being - which explains why, last night, Sandra kept shouting “Oh my God.” A frozen hell does not mean no more souls being accepted. if we stick to his two theories, then a frozen hell is a non expanding hell thus souls will keep entering untill his presumed pressure and temp will once again cause hell to expand. if we expand this to add my other two options, then all this will show is that hell is not (as I said earlier) in a consistant state of temp/pressure.

no, not 'A' material.

Mistake #1. the assumption that souls have mass. when a person dies, does the body get lighter? I think not. so the 'mass of Hell' should be unchanging

Wrong. Souls do have mass, as demonstrated by the philosopher Sean Penn in the early 21st century:
"How many lives do we live? How many times do we die? They say we all lose 21 grams... at the exact moment of our death. Everyone. And how much fits into 21 grams? How much is lost? When do we lose 21 grams? How much goes with them? How much is gained? How much is gained? Twenty-one grams. The weight of a stack of five nickels. The weight of a hummingbird. A chocolate bar. How much did 21 grams weigh?"
So where is your science now?

The teach shouldn't have awarded this student an 'A'.

why?
Mistake #1. the assumption that souls have mass. when a person dies, does the body get lighter? I think not.

Actually they do. Loss of blood or air from the lungs and other bodily fluids and the like. Nothing that could actually be tied down to being a 'soul', however.

Actually they do. Loss of blood or air from the lungs and other bodily fluids and the like. Nothing that could actually be tied down to being a 'soul', however. ;)

where does the blood go moments after the body dies?

air is trapped in the lungs until released or forced out.

Fluids will evaporate (and also from blood... if that's what you mean)

but all of that takes time.

Wrong. Souls do have mass, as demonstrated by the philosopher Sean Penn in the early 21st century:
"How many lives do we live? How many times do we die? They say we all lose 21 grams... at the exact moment of our death. Everyone. And how much fits into 21 grams? How much is lost? When do we lose 21 grams? How much goes with them? How much is gained? How much is gained? Twenty-one grams. The weight of a stack of five nickels. The weight of a hummingbird. A chocolate bar. How much did 21 grams weigh?"
So where is your science now?

can you source this?

if not then it's just another crackpot! :p

btw.... my science is right... wait... maybe this pocket... no... I just had it... :confused:

Actually they do. Loss of blood or air from the lungs and other bodily fluids and the like. Nothing that could actually be tied down to being a 'soul', however.
Don't forget the releasing of the bowels. The brain stops functioning, and then whoosh, splat! Right out the backdoor and down the trouser legs, like a fucking trapdoor.

;)

where does the blood go moments after the body dies?
Usually it stays where it is, unless one died from blood loss. Then most of it is, obviously, no longer in the body.

air is trapped in the lungs until released or forced out.

Fluids will evaporate (and also from blood... if that's what you mean)

but all of that takes time.

True.

can you source this?
I got your source (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315733/) right here.
Nominated for two Oscars, as well as 54 other awards (20 of which it won), and just how many award nominations did An Inconvenient Truth get? A mere 28. That means that the weight of a soul is almost twice as real as global warming.
Selection committees don't lie, except about taking bribes. They lie about not taking any of those a lot, but they're always honest about science.

I got your source (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0315733/) right here.
Nominated for two Oscars, as well as 54 other awards (20 of which it won), and just how many award nominations did An Inconvenient Truth get? A mere 28. That means that the weight of a soul is almost twice as real as global warming.
Selection committees don't lie, except about taking bribes. They lie about not taking any of those a lot, but they're always honest about science.

Time to conduct some RESEARCH! :D

(I hope Blockbuster has it...)

Wrong. Souls do have mass, as demonstrated by the philosopher Sean Penn in the early 21st century:
"How many lives do we live? How many times do we die? They say we all lose 21 grams... at the exact moment of our death. Everyone. And how much fits into 21 grams? How much is lost? When do we lose 21 grams? How much goes with them? How much is gained? How much is gained? Twenty-one grams. The weight of a stack of five nickels. The weight of a hummingbird. A chocolate bar. How much did 21 grams weigh?"
So where is your science now?

Seriously, that's where the title comes from? Now I'm doubly glad that I skipped that movie. I probably would have been beaten up for laughing in the theater.

Time to conduct some RESEARCH! :D

(I hope Blockbuster has it...)

Sean Penn is actually a truly fecund font of citable morsels. His character "Davey Kleinfeld" from Carlito's Way is the second most referenced fictional lawyer in the 9th District of Appeals.

Common law issues on indecent exposure are rarely addressed without noting his famous legal axiom "Louie, your fuckin' chick's givin' you a handjob right in front of everybody. I got guests here, for christsake. People are eating."

The teach shouldn't have awarded this student an 'A'.

He didn't. This story never actually happened. It's one of those stories.

Kinda like that one where a teacher wrote one question: "Why?" and the student who got an 'A' was the one who answered: "Because".

Sean Penn is actually a truly fecund font of citable morsels. His character "Davey Kleinfeld" from Carlito's Way is the second most referenced fictional lawyer in the 9th District of Appeals.

Common law issues on indecent exposure are rarely addressed without noting his famous legal axiom "Louie, your fuckin' chick's givin' you a handjob right in front of everybody. I got guests here, for christsake. People are eating."

Hell, I heard it in traffic court the other day.

Hell, I heard it in traffic court the other day.

I'm told Saddam's war crimes trial was settled with the quote "You're the cherry here, right? So lighten up." -Casualties of War

I'm told Saddam's war crimes trial was settled with the quote "You're the cherry here, right? So lighten up." -Casualties of War

And who could forget Nuremburg?

"Stan, you're in Ala-fuckin-bama. You come from New York. You killed a good-ole-boy. There is no WAY this is not going to trial!"

He didn't. This story never actually happened. It's one of those stories.

Kinda like that one where a teacher wrote one question: "Why?" and the student who got an 'A' was the one who answered: "Because". heard that one.

the one I like was the Philosophy professor who put a chare on his desk and wrote on the board "describe this chair" and the student wrote "what chair?"

Hell, I heard it in traffic court the other day.people were giving hand jobs to each other in traffic court? :eek:

heard that one.

the one I like was the Philosophy professor who put a chare on his desk and wrote on the board "describe this chair" and the student wrote "what chair?"

:D I'd forgotten about that one. Yeah, that's one of the best ones I've heard.

people were giving hand jobs to each other in traffic court? :eek:

:tongue:

Totally kidding.

He didn't. This story never actually happened. It's one of those stories.

Kinda like that one where a teacher wrote one question: "Why?" and the student who got an 'A' was the one who answered: "Because".


Once knew a man who claimed to have gotten a B+ on that very exam. He allegedly went with "Why not?".

Once knew a man who claimed to have gotten a B+ on that very exam. He allegedly went with "Why not?".

Other answers:

"Dunno"
"I just felt like it"
"Seemed like a good idea at the time"
"That's why".

:D I'd forgotten about that one. Yeah, that's one of the best ones I've heard.
the best one is one told by my English Lit teacher.

she once told us that she was a Phys Ed teacher. and her spiel was that he final exam would be that half the class would do an archery test and the other half would dodge the arrows shot by the first half.

if the archers hit a student, then they passed. if the student avoided the arrows, then they passed.

of course the students laughed it off (she was a joker)... mid term came and they took up archery and they practiced hitting moving targets (a target on a swing).

some students still chuckled about her final exam...

the week of finals she reserved the archery range... a couple students chuckled...

the day before finals she had each student draw a card. each card was labeled with either a "1" or a "2" and she told them that the class would meet at the archery range... some still smiled... forced smile but still a smile

when the class got there, there was a medic standing by and one of the faculty checking the archery equiptment... no one was smiling...

several minutes later she sauntered up to the class and handed out their grades and wished them a great christmas/summer vacation. (the 'Medic' was her friend and the faculty member checking the archery equiptment was the groundskeeper... both were in on the joke. she said her friend the 'medic' was having trouble keeping a straight face as the students were arguing on who was doing the shooting and who was doing the dodging.)

the one I like was the Philosophy professor who put a chare on his desk and wrote on the board "describe this chair" and the student wrote "what chair?"

I think you're misremembering that one. Remember, it's a Philosophy exam: the question is, "Prove that the chair doesn't exist."

I think you're misremembering that one. Remember, it's a Philosophy exam: the question is, "Prove that the chair doesn't exist."

Weren't they supposed to prove the chair did exist?

Weren't they supposed to prove the chair did exist?
It's a joke, whatever version seems funnier at the time it is being told is the correct one. You think the reporters at CNN spend this much time trying to figure out the correct sequence of events?

Weren't they supposed to prove the chair did exist?

"Every idiot can learn that the Earth is round. Every smart person can prove that the Earth is round. But a genius is the one who can prove it's flat. "

"Every idiot can learn that the Earth is round. Every smart person can prove that the Earth is round. But a genius is the one who can prove it's flat. "

Yeah, but that's with science. Philosophy is a whole 'nother type of talking.

Wrong. Souls do have mass, as demonstrated by the philosopher Sean Penn in the early 21st century:
"How many lives do we live? How many times do we die? They say we all lose 21 grams... at the exact moment of our death. Everyone. And how much fits into 21 grams? How much is lost? When do we lose 21 grams? How much goes with them? How much is gained? How much is gained? Twenty-one grams. The weight of a stack of five nickels. The weight of a hummingbird. A chocolate bar. How much did 21 grams weigh?"
So where is your science now?
The 21 grams business came from someone who claimed to have measured the weight of a soul. However, more recent measurements have concluded that the body does not lose mass immediately after death when any soul would have left.

Weren't they supposed to prove the chair did exist?

Then the student's answer wouldn't have addressed the question.

He didn't. This story never actually happened. It's one of those stories.

Kinda like that one where a teacher wrote one question: "Why?" and the student who got an 'A' was the one who answered: "Because".

I thought that the A answer in that one was "Why not?".

Yeah, but that's with science. Philosophy is a whole 'nother type of talking.
It's particularly so with philosophy... Chair's existence can be proved zetetically. Nonexistence, however, can't.

It's particularly so with philosophy... Chair's existence can be proved zetetically. Nonexistence, however, can't.

I dunno. I see it being more likely that a teacher would ask to prove that the chair exists. Because then you get into the whole territory that philosophy is meant to address in the first place.

According to nihilism, it's irrelevant if the chair exists or not. Existence has no intrinsic value or purpose, after all.

The 21 grams business came from someone who claimed to have measured the weight of a soul. However, more recent measurements have concluded that the body does not lose mass immediately after death when any soul would have left.
The amusing thing was that it was performed with only 6 people (of only 1 was counted in the results :p).