I don't get this joke. Its really sciency or something....

[Plurralbles]

um... other than obvious size and the fact that elephants are made out of nuclei and nuclei are not made out of elephants...

 

[Herb sewell]

Ha!
Its funny.
You don't have to understand the science really...

It's not a joke

But Doctor, wouldn't that cause a parabolic destabilization of the fission singularity?

This however is.

 

[presidentjlh]

"What's the difference between a nucleus and an elephant?: Using surrogate reactions to deduce neutron-induced reaction cross sections on radioactive nuclei "

It's a non-joke.

 

[SnootyEnglishman]

I highly doubt it was a joke..and it just a wordy science problem.

 

[Pigeon_Grenade]

Someones messing with you

 

[Zeromaeus]

Ha!
Its funny.
You don't have to understand the science really...

It's not a joke

But Doctor, wouldn't that cause a parabolic destabilization of the fission singularity?

This however is.

Its a joke. It has a build-up and a punch-line. Its a traditional set-up style joke.

 

[Kaymish]

its funny because they have nothing to do with each other

 

[Captain Blackout]

Ha!
Its funny.
You don't have to understand the science really...

It's not a joke

But Doctor, wouldn't that cause a parabolic destabilization of the fission singularity?

This however is.

And yet I laughed the moment I got it....... I think your funny bone has destabilized
[small]*ducks*[/small]

 

[o_O]

Yeah, I'm going with the "You've been punked" mindset. The punchline doesn't seem to make any sense on its own, let alone as a joke. I like to think I'm decent at telling if you're trying to fake being science-y, but ya never know... >_>

 

[Sepiida]

Or... its not a joke and someone is punking you.

I somewhat doubt http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/colloquiums/Previous/Fall_2006/Lee_Bernstein.html
is punking me.

Your kidding right it's not a joke it's the name of a lecture and then what the lecture is about. It's like "failing and you: a beginners guide to reading comprehension"

This. It's not a joke, it's a title.

 

[Herb sewell]

Ha!
Its funny.
You don't have to understand the science really...

It's not a joke

But Doctor, wouldn't that cause a parabolic destabilization of the fission singularity?

This however is.

Its a joke. It has a build-up and a punch-line. Its a traditional set-up style joke.

No it's literally not a joke it's the title of a lecture.http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/colloquiums/Previous/Fall_2006/Lee_Bernstein.html
Kind of interesting how many people found it funny simply because they were told that they should.

 

[TheTaco007]

I've heard that joke before, but it began "how do you tell the difference between" rather than "what's the difference between" and so was funny...

This is the actual joke. The science-y part of the joke is a test (I'm guessing) to determine the properties of some part of an atom, and since an elephant isn't an atom, the test will tell the difference between them.

Joke should read:

"How do you tell the difference between a nucleus and an elephant? Using surrogate reactions to deduce neutron-induced reaction cross sections on radioactive nuclei."

 

[lacktheknack]

It's called a "Dumb Science" joke, where they overwhelm you with irrelevant "sciencey" information for confusion... and lulz.

 

[Shurikens and Lightning]

It's not a direct joke, or at least not in the way non-Germans mean a joke. It's a literal question: what makes the difference between large constructs of elemental particles and the elemental particles themselves.

Any joke perceived in this question would have to take the form of a non-sequitur i.e. "What's the difference between and Elephant and a banana: Chickens lay eggs."

The obvious lack of connection between the set-up and the punchline, whilst maintaining a joke-like format, brings about a form of humour of discordance: it's funny because there's nothing funny about it, yet it's postulated as if it were funny. The brain seems to find this kind of absurdities amusing.

It might also be using this same absurdity based humour deliberately as the answer following the question exceeds its complexity to an amusingly mismatching degree. A synergy of this and my first guess is probably the closest to the truth, however, having not attended Dr. Bernstein's lecture this is just conjecture.

I love how you made a joke into a formula.

OP: If I dont find it funny I just take a word from the sentence and do this: That's not a nucleus, that's my wife!

 

[o_O]

Oh. OH. Oh. It makes a hell of a lot more sense now that I see that colon there. And know it's a title to a lecture.

 

[lacktheknack]

It's not a direct joke, or at least not in the way non-Germans mean a joke. It's a literal question: what makes the difference between large constructs of elemental particles and the elemental particles themselves.

Any joke perceived in this question would have to take the form of a non-sequitur i.e. "What's the difference between and Elephant and a banana: Chickens lay eggs."

The obvious lack of connection between the set-up and the punchline, whilst maintaining a joke-like format, brings about a form of humour of discordance: it's funny because there's nothing funny about it, yet it's postulated as if it were funny. The brain seems to find this kind of absurdities amusing.

It might also be using this same absurdity based humour deliberately as the answer following the question exceeds its complexity to an amusingly mismatching degree. A synergy of this and my first guess is probably the closest to the truth, however, having not attended Dr. Bernstein's lecture this is just conjecture.

Pretty much this.

A similar question/ joke would be:
Q. "How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?"
A. "Fish."

 

[BGH122]

Ha!
Its funny.
You don't have to understand the science really...

It's not a joke

But Doctor, wouldn't that cause a parabolic destabilization of the fission singularity?

This however is.

Its a joke. It has a build-up and a punch-line. Its a traditional set-up style joke.

No it's literally not a joke it's the title of a lecture.http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/colloquiums/Previous/Fall_2006/Lee_Bernstein.html
Kind of interesting how many people found it funny simply because they were told that they should.

I'm not even sure that that's the reason. Threads like this are swamped in evaluation-apprehension: very few people would wish to declare this a non-joke and then be ridiculed as intellectually inferior by those who understood it, not that there is anything to understand in this case.

Although this thread is the epitome of a problem raised by a fellow escapist some months back i.e. most escapists just enter a thread, read the OP, post their own useless opinion and then ditch the thread. Nearly every post that has been posted in the last half-hour has already been answered above.

 

[GRoXERs]

Or... its not a joke and someone is punking you.

I somewhat doubt http://www.nuc.berkeley.edu/colloquiums/Previous/Fall_2006/Lee_Bernstein.html
is punking me.

Your kidding right it's not a joke it's the name of a lecture and then what the lecture is about. It's like "failing and you: a beginners guide to reading comprehension"

This. Also, OH SNAP

 

[BGH122]

It's not a direct joke, or at least not in the way non-Germans mean a joke. It's a literal question: what makes the difference between large constructs of elemental particles and the elemental particles themselves.

Any joke perceived in this question would have to take the form of a non-sequitur i.e. "What's the difference between and Elephant and a banana: Chickens lay eggs."

The obvious lack of connection between the set-up and the punchline, whilst maintaining a joke-like format, brings about a form of humour of discordance: it's funny because there's nothing funny about it, yet it's postulated as if it were funny. The brain seems to find this kind of absurdities amusing.

It might also be using this same absurdity based humour deliberately as the answer following the question exceeds its complexity to an amusingly mismatching degree. A synergy of this and my first guess is probably the closest to the truth, however, having not attended Dr. Bernstein's lecture this is just conjecture.

I love how you made a joke into a formula.

OP: If I dont find it funny I just take a word from the sentence and do this: That's not a nucleus, that's my wife!

I know, it does seem very absurd that there could be such things as joke 'formulas', but in simplistic jokes that's more or less the case. But don't take my word for it, wikipedia could probably explain these paradigmatic humour formulas better than me (certainly more concisely, I tend to ramble).

 

[Herb sewell]

I'm not even sure that that's the reason. Threads like this are swamped in evaluation-apprehension: very few people would wish to declare this a non-joke and then be ridiculed as intellectually inferior by those who understood it, not that there is anything to understand in this case.

Although this thread is the epitome of a problem raised by a fellow escapist some months back i.e. most escapists just enter a thread, read the OP, post their own useless opinion and then ditch the thread. Nearly every post that has been posted in the last half-hour has already been answered above.

Yeah it really doesn't help a discussion if every other line is somebody screaming the second thing posted again.