The Perfect Lab Report For Any Failed Or Fundamentally Flawed Experiment

Note: I am writing this to express my frustration at the most preposterous assignment my college laboratory has ever given me, in which there was no practical way to obtain results. Surprise, surprise, few of us even got any!

An experiment was conducted by a sample of unfortunate physics students, in which their aims were limited by a number of underlying flaws, including a bloody stupid method imposed by the laboratory assessors, and the allocation of their time being biased in favour of stating the obvious to their instructors repeatedly to avoid error. The practice may appear unnecessary to the outside observer, however in the context of the assessment system, there is no option except for the sample to follow directions to the letter, no matter how many assumptions regarding the method which break the simplest laws of physics are made by the academic staff, or how oblivious the instructors are to these principles which have been set in stone for generations of science. This assessment shall describe the teaching and torture method imposed by the college laboratory, and draw some noteworthy conclusions from evidence of the outcome of this method put into trial.

Teaching students the necessities for conducting an experiment in the laboratory has long been a quintessential piece in the heart of the complex structure of higher education. In theory, the scheme of survival of the fittest, by which an experiment which is clearly bound to go wrong and/or bound to return little to no agreeable data, is infallible; given that the universe is infinite, every event with a finite probability of occurrence will occur somewhere; perhaps they are happening all the time, only in non-accessible dimensions. Therefore, presenting the students with an assignment which has a probability of working estimated to be infinitesimal is not an inconvenience, as multiple trials will definitely return a success for every infinite number of failures.
This statement is believed to be very profound because, this is an inspiring ideology for the students to withhold. When one dedicates one's life to the sciences, there are endless possibilities out there, if one's mind is set to a goal. Literally. And with the infinite set of experimental outcomes which will definitely occur, somewhere, sometime, this is just another example of a goal which they will inevitably achieve. Given infinite time and space, there's no limit to what the students can accomplish.
This project analysed a sample of physics students to test this hypothesis, and to test the robustness of the physics education hypothesis, the most seemingly unrealistic proposals were given to them, and they were accompanied only by the most dim-witted and worthless of demonstrators, such that any relationship they have between them is built around remembering them as such.

The probability of an experiment working properly can be evaluated by the product of individual parts of the experiment behaving according to plan. This method of teaching, however, aims to minimise this probability, but keep it above zero. Thus, assignment proposals are written with several hidden flaws, which make the task improbable in a local frame, such as within the spacial range of a few square meters and the temporal range of three hours per session. With the size of the sample, however, the probability within the sample is multiplied by the sample size. Thus, there is a reasonable chance that a successful trial is at least observed, and this is a sufficient result to claim that the practical part of the teaching is adequate.
A number of assumptions are made before conducting the teaching experiment are made. Most notably, the assumption is made that the student knows everything, and will have no difficulty at all setting up the apparatus, collecting data and processing it, and concluding the result which they set out to prove. They assume this with complete regard to the fact that the instructions which they have to follow to the letter are dumber than a lobotomised Teletubby, however, given that the outcome is a well-established rule of physics, which a university student SHOULD KNOW, this is in fact a reasonable assumption. Additionally, given that in scientific theory, an assumption which is reasonable does not require assistance, it follows that the students require little to no useful feedback from their instructors.
The lab instructors are present as a set of observers, and so it can be argued that they play a role in the experiment on a quantum level. However, while the students may be experimenting with quantum effects, the nature of the experiment does not concern the instructors. As both the instructors and the students can be treated as classical objects, it can be accepted that the observer does not play in a role in the outcome of the experiment. This agrees with the preliminary trials in which the instructors were selected and allocated; the action of the demonstrators is perpendicular to that of the students at all times, from which it can be deduced that no work is done by them.

Once the laboratory session is underway, the assignments are given, and in a typical education system, technical assignment directions are easy to follow. But this is a top-rated university, dammit, and the next generation of aspiring scientists should be faced with a challenge, no matter how unnecessary. Thus, the instructions they were given were riddled with riddles; preliminary test examples include, "test the electrical resonance peak through a resistor despite the inductor's impedance being so much higher and variant that the experimental method itself cannot possibly work", and "the integral of an unspecified variable is pi. Prove this experimentally." These unfathomable intellectual stimuli are what stretch these brilliant minds to the limit, and before they can make progress with the task in hand, their minds are already buzzing with questions.
The instructors were distributed unevenly across the room, with approximately one near the students, the rest chattering. The solitary instructor proceeds to waddle around the students, peering over them, and checking out that hot chick setting up her sexy Wheatstone Bridge. Of course, with his uncontrollable libido aside, this hero in the eyes of any ill-informed student marches on, entirely ignorant to the troubles of those who were made to replicate the foolhardy apparatus which the staff designed without test.
Once a hand is raised, the demonstrator will listen intently, and understand exactly why the student is frustrated, which tells so much more than knowing what it is that is wrong. Hence, the student is made to consider the tangent to their criteria, which curves away from the focus of the question they had, as well as the experiment in general, and asymptotes towards a completely pointless divergence from the relevant information. To prolong the procedure and hence extend the time frame over which the observations of the students are conducted, the agitated individual and the moron in charge argue for hours, and the argument is repeated a fair number of times to reduce random error in the calculations. Finally, the sequence breaks down under large trial numbers, where the approximation of reasonability is no longer valid, and the demonstrators cut straight to the point: none whatsoever. As the experiment cannot really be taken seriously, the student may find any point of getting up this morning difficult to picture, however, they are told that they are already making great contributions to science. They clearly have a bright future ahead of them, with the experience they now have.


Fig. 1: A graph detailing the exact number of data points the students were able to collect under the laboratory system, and the relationships and conclusions that could be made.

With regard to figure 1, it may appear that the extension of the student's time frame has been insufficient to enable them to achieve conclusive data. However, this figure is merely a single data point collected by the lab staff, in the finite sample of their infinite data sets. Those of you who are reading this report with access to exponentially more dimensions will be able to see much more conclusive data.
Given the infinite space and time in which this analysis is theoretically made, just as the infinitesimally small probabilities of the student's aims panning out becomes an absolute certainty, so does the outcome of the motivation for the lab staff's actions. Therefore, the experiment is unquestionably flawless.
However, in future runs of this experiment, a number of factors may also be taken into account. These may include:

Relativity: As time flies when one is having fun, while it slows in times of frustration and disbelief, the time scales for the instructor may be vastly different from those of the student. This can be simplified with a concept analogous to the Twin Paradox, in which one twin is a demonstrator and the other is a student. The two twins begin the trial run at exactly the same age, however afterwards, the demonstrator is fifty times younger than the student. The issue here is how old age may affect the student's academic progress. Fortunately, there is an alternate universe in which the student has finished the experiment quickly, and has actually learned something from the tutoring, so it would be of no harm if this student lost their future.
Thermal Energy: As frustrating the student causes an increase in temperature, which may contribute to the vaporisation of blood, or the environmental factors to alternate randomly, or the local reality to liquidise, this may cause the local trial to melt into the void of intelligence. Luckily, with an infinite number of realities, there are an infinite number of trial sets which take place, so the probability of this outcome is minimal.
Irreversible Processes: As each reality has a finite number of students and a finite number of instructors, it is clear that in each lab, there will be experimental details which are missed or bypassed. Treating the lab as a closed thermodynamic system, events which occur in the present can be recorded, however, information is lost about the past as the entropy of the lab rises with the arrow of time. However, learning from Friedrich Nietzsche and from Maxwell's Demon, we know that the universe's order will reform from what the observer perceives as violating thermodynamics, and thus, the events in each trial are guaranteed, given a universal interval of time, to repeat, and after this time, further measurements can be recorded.

This education system is clearly dignified, as it is proven to show the students that no matter how ridiculous a proposal is, no matter how stupid the assistants are to them, anything at all is possible given the infinite properties of the universe, and the infinite number of people identical to them, in which one is guaranteed to have succeeded in their aims and dreams, at least. The students may follow a philosophy from this that, even the dumbest idea will work in some cases, transcending multiple dimensions across the universe, and even in a finite space and a finite time, there is a point where they are successful, given all the space and time there is. The staff may be a clan of monumental morons, but even with their feeble efforts to do something useful, they have done a lot, educating young, aspiring scientists everywhere and everywhen.
As a physics student myself, I too am inspired by the infallible works of these lazy, stupid idiots, and following in their teachings, I shall proceed to construct a source of free infinite energy from a mixture of owl pee and guacamole in an atomic laser trap, because I am absolutely certain that some form of me will.


Https:// v=IRsPheErBj8 - keycha1n

The quote I live by. - PositronWildhawk

So...what are you getting at...? - Britgirl

Story of my life. #middleschool - CityGuru

#college - PositronWildhawk

Is this science stuff - visitor