quotd - The Revisionist Historian's Bible
"And Maxwell said, Let there be:
∫E ∙ dA = Q/ε
∫B ∙ dA = 0
∫E ∙ ds = -dФ/dt
∫B ∙ ds = μi + με(dФ/dt)
and there was light. And Maxwell saw the light, that it was good..."
--Genesis, 1:4-5
"And Maxwell said, Let there be:
∫E ∙ dA = Q/ε
∫B ∙ dA = 0
∫E ∙ ds = -dФ/dt
∫B ∙ ds = μi + με(dФ/dt)
and there was light. And Maxwell saw the light, that it was good..."
--Genesis, 1:4-5
Uh, what?
I saw that on Feller's wall, though.
?!?
adam, is there something you want to tell me? maybe it has to do with freshmen year...? eh?
?!?
I agree with "Me"
Geez, what happened to all of your senses of humor? Haven't you a shread of knowledge about physics or the bible? It's a play on a quote from the first part of the Genesis, with Maxwell (James Clerk, that is) substituted for God and Maxwell's equations substituted for the first instance of the word light. Since revisionist history tends to take all historical events and analyze them from the perspective of modern sensibilities and values, the joke was to do the same with the bible. Really, you should learn more physics humor...
?!?
Oh, one more thing. That is most certainly NOT Feller's room, nor is there barely anything in there that is Feller's. It's Zaraza's room with all 22 years of junk piled in it. I'm interested to see if there's anyone at all who signs up for AP Physics after Zaraza retires. Feller is so bad that I can't imagine her teaching the course, seeing as she can't even manage first year physics (my opinion, of course).
We (I?!?) understand the joke. Just not you.
What do I want to tell you...?
That you're very, very sorry and it won't happen again.
Adam, I dunno...what do you want to tell me?...or not want to tell me? i know, i just want to hear it from you. and i know you know i know so tell me.
and who the hell is "Me"???
This is a great thread. I should write more physics jokes. Me is Ted Sanders. But seriously, I haven't the foggiest idea what you're talking about.
I am Me.
You shouldn't write more physics jokes, Adam. You should defend your claims and debate in the more controversial posts.
Ted wants to debate whether the government's protection of animal rights is based solely on moral ground, to the exclusion of any practical means. I argue that it's not. I think that animal rights is intricately intertwined with the development of environmentalism. In the long run, human stewardship of the environment is necessary for our survival.
Why do you continue to make such broad, sweeping statements that have no substantiation? We need to talk at lunch sometime, not just regurgitate information by inefficient means such as this Online Journal (Yes, I said it.).