PDA

View Full Version : How Much Wood Would a Woodchuck Chuck if a Woodchuck Could Chuck Wood?


WatchMeBeQuieter
03-28-2011, 02:31 AM
Well?

...How much wood would a Woodchuck chuck if a Woodchuck could chuck wood??

I need to know!!

Woodchuck
03-28-2011, 02:36 AM
We just keep on chuckin' 'til we're dead.

Kenny_C.002
03-28-2011, 04:43 AM
15 arbitrary units of wood.

Woodchuck
03-28-2011, 06:03 AM
15 arbitrary units of wood.

I don't reckon ain't nobody tried to figure the amount, but iffin they did, 15 might be damn close.

'Course us poor, simple woodchucks can't count to 15, but ya'll doctorin' types got it right figured out, don'cha?

ReclusiveDemon
03-28-2011, 06:04 AM
A woodchuck would chuck the weight of 37 chickens before realizing there is no point in it.

SLC
03-28-2011, 06:49 AM
_____________
/____________/|
|____________|/ <--- Roughly this amount.

Skylands
03-28-2011, 02:03 PM
Divide by zero to get your answer.

Disco
03-28-2011, 02:35 PM
A-hem.

The amount of wood that woodchucks would chuck on a given day varies greatly with the individual woodchuck. According to a Wall Street Journal article, New York State wildlife expert Richard Thomas found that a woodchuck could chuck around 35 cubic feet of dirt in the course of digging a burrow. Thomas reasoned that if a woodchuck could chuck wood, he would chuck an amount equal to 700 pounds.
Some say it depends on three factors:

* The woodchuck's desire to chuck said wood.

* The woodchuck's need to chuck the aforementioned wood.

* The woodchuck's ability to chuck the wood when it is a woodchuck



Please, please. Hold your applause.
I'm sure Woodchuck agrees, iffin he understood.

Woodchuck
03-28-2011, 02:49 PM
Please, please. Hold your applause.
I'm sure Woodchuck agrees, iffin he understood.

Well shoot, lil' missy. I can't understand none o' them fancy schmancy words. They look pretty darn scientifical, though, so I guess I can take yer word fer it.

Disco
03-28-2011, 04:53 PM
Don't worry, sir, they're nothin' but a compliment. 8)

Professor Geoffrey
03-28-2011, 11:44 PM
That's easy.

ALL OF IT.

~Professor Geoffrey

Disco
03-28-2011, 11:57 PM
Be quiet, I already won, Geoffrey. :I
Move over, Professor DISCO is here. :DDD
(lolololjk Ilu.)

WatchMeBeQuieter
03-29-2011, 12:12 AM
Be quiet, I already won, Geoffrey. :I
Move over, Professor DISCO is here. :DDD
(lolololjk Ilu.)

If you ask me, the actual amount of chuckable wood is approximately 274. The Wall Street Journal can kiss my bum

Kenny_C.002
03-29-2011, 12:40 AM
Be quiet, I already won, Geoffrey. :I
Move over, Professor DISCO is here. :DDD
(lolololjk Ilu.)
So I guess 700 pounds is 15 arbitrary units of wood?

Disco
03-29-2011, 01:35 AM
In science and technology, an arbitrary unit (abbreviated arb. unit,[1] see below) or procedure defined unit[2] (p.d.u.) is a relative unit of measurement to show the ratio of amount of substance, intensity, or other quantities, to a predetermined reference measurement. The reference measurement is typically defined by the local laboratories or dependent on individual measurement apparatus. It is therefore impossible to compare "1 arb. unit" by one measurer and "1000 arb. unit" by another measurer without detailed prior knowledge on how the respective "arbitrary units" were defined; thus, the unit is sometimes called an unknown unit.

So I guess 1 arb. unit = approximately 46.7 pounds.

WatchMeBeQuieter
03-29-2011, 02:03 AM
So I guess 1 arb. unit = approximately 46.7 pounds.

I didn't read the Wikipedia quote, so I just entered the numbers into the calculator... and I was like "oh wow! It actually IS 15 arbitrary units of wood!"

Then I read the Wikipedia quote

Then I was like "damn, I've just been had"

I still think it all depends on how good his dentures are.

CrazyTrainer
03-29-2011, 02:28 AM
It can't chuck wood guys because the question says if the woodchuck could chuck wood. So I'm going to put what I'm definitely right.

Kenny_C.002
03-29-2011, 02:45 AM
I didn't read the Wikipedia quote, so I just entered the numbers into the calculator... and I was like "oh wow! It actually IS 15 arbitrary units of wood!"

Then I read the Wikipedia quote

Then I was like "damn, I've just been had"

I still think it all depends on how good his dentures are.
lol I just find that hilarious.

KantoBreeder
03-29-2011, 03:44 PM
As much wood as a Woodchuck could chuck if a Woodchuck could Chuck Norris.

That is my story and I'm sticking to it.

Disco
03-29-2011, 04:09 PM
Your answer has not yet been proven.

It is unknown at present whether or not a woodchuck could chuck Chuck Norris. It seems unlikely - it is perhaps far more likely that Chuck would chuck a woodchuck that would try to chuck Norris. This of course raises the obvious question: How much woodchuck would Chuck chuck if a woodchuck couldn't chuck Chuck and Chuck could chuck woodchucks? And if at the same time woodchucks were chucking wood, would Chuck chuck woodchucks and wood and would woodchucks still chuck wood if Chuck had chucked all the wood and the woodchucks? The answers are as yet unknown.

Thus it's considered baseless conjecture.

http://blogs.wpri.com/files/2009/12/woodchuck1.jpg

Son, I am disappoint.

WatchMeBeQuieter
03-29-2011, 08:19 PM
WikiApedia, eh? Let's see something from Wikipedia :P

But I am just teasing. Still, link me to the article

Disco
03-29-2011, 08:41 PM
Here it is. (http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Woodchuck)

Wikiapedia has spoken. Ready the cannons of baseless conjectures. I'll be waiting.

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bkFIPLIOGL8/TG6zoJWWiBI/AAAAAAAAs0Q/thBbhn46DGw/s1600/woodchuck.jpg

Fire at will, soldier.

WatchMeBeQuieter
03-29-2011, 09:00 PM
Oh HO! This is not Wikipedia, but rather a less-than-viable-but-much-more-hilarious substitute!

I would "bring it" except that woodchuck is holding a machine gun, and if I brought it, I would probably be shot numerous times, which wouldn't be good for my health

So I'll just watch from a respectable distance

EDIT:
The etymology of the name woodchuck is unrelated to wood (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood) or chucking (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Throwing_%28cricket%29).

Hahahahahaha

Disco
03-29-2011, 09:18 PM
I was never lying in the first place. I did say Wikiapedia.

Also, maybe that Woodchuck is a Groundhog.

Also once more, I believe we did discuss that woodchucks cannot chuck wood. However, we're now discussing how much wood a Woodchuck would actually chuck, if a Woodchuck held such an ability.

From a moral viewpoint, we are being rather condenscending to the Woodchuck community. Just because we have never seen a Woodchuck chuck wood, we automatically assume that Woodchucks cannot chuck wood. In my opinion, Woodchucks can chuck anything they want, so long as they believe.

:U

Teddiursa of the Sky
03-29-2011, 09:22 PM
Being a Wiki, it can never be trusted.

http://cbender.com/woodchuck.jpg

You asked for it, I brought it.

WatchMeBeQuieter
03-29-2011, 09:57 PM
I was never lying in the first place. I did say Wikiapedia.

Also, maybe that Woodchuck is a Groundhog.

Also once more, I believe we did discuss that woodchucks cannot chuck wood. However, we're now discussing how much wood a Woodchuck would actually chuck, if a Woodchuck held such an ability.

From a moral viewpoint, we are being rather condenscending to the Woodchuck community. Just because we have never seen a Woodchuck chuck wood, we automatically assume that Woodchucks cannot chuck wood. In my opinion, Woodchucks can chuck anything they want, so long as they believe.

:U

I guess I thought the a in Wikiapedia was a typo on your part :P My apologies

And maybe woodchucks actually are physically incapable of chucking anything. as Wikipedia tells us, its name is not derived from chucking, so perhaps it's as incapable of chucking as human beings are of firing laser beams from their elbows.

I have never seen a human being fire a laser beam his/her elbow. Even if I don't have concrete proof, I personally believe that no human is biologically capable of such a feat. The same principle goes for woodchucks--have you EVER seen a woodchuck chuck something? They are rather devoid of thumbs; how could they chuck things in the slightest?

And even then, I didn't imply that they can't chuck wood as it is. Indeed, the phrase "could" does not imply inability to do so. Here is how Google defines could:

Used to show the possibility that something might happen

If it is a possibility, then perhaps woodchucks CAN chuck wood. I still believe that they don't, but until this post, I never implied that they can't.

Judging from a substantially large amalgamation of photographic evidence, however, it seems that most woodchucks simply aren't concerned what we think. They are fairly carefree, after all.
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3441/3238799160_15d897eb46.jpg
Isn't he cute? Not a care in the world <3

Disco
03-29-2011, 10:16 PM
Touche, my friend.

Also, to the army Woodchuck, I should hope you have decades of experience in the field, as mine does. It shall be a valiant battle.

Also, maybe this Woodchuck (http://www.pokemonelite2000.com/forum/member.php?u=5215) cares.

Velocity
03-29-2011, 10:18 PM
As much wood as a wood CHUCK NORRIS could if a wood CHUCK NORRIS could chuck wood.
c:

YOU SAW IT COMIN'

WatchMeBeQuieter
03-29-2011, 10:20 PM
Also, maybe this Woodchuck (http://www.pokemonelite2000.com/forum/member.php?u=5215) cares.

Hahahaha xD I like it

I guess I can take yer word fer it.

Apparently, he guesses he can take our word fer it.

Is that the same as not caring? Well, that's up to the viewer to decide

Woodchuck
03-29-2011, 11:09 PM
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_bkFIPLIOGL8/TG6zoJWWiBI/AAAAAAAAs0Q/thBbhn46DGw/s1600/woodchuck.jpg

What in the-

WHERE DID YOU GET THIS? JEST WHAT THE HELL DO YA'LL THINK YER DOIN' TAKIN' UNAUTHORICIZED PICTURES OF ME?!

I'm callin' the police. Ain't no reason any decent, red-blooded woodchuck citizen of these United States should have to worry about this here kind o' stalkery.

Disco
03-29-2011, 11:52 PM
Don't worry, sir, it's all for the sake of science.

Ridley
03-30-2011, 01:14 AM
http://pokemon.neoseeker.com/w/i/pokemon/1/1a/Bibarel.png

Teddiursa of the Sky
03-30-2011, 03:25 PM
What in the-

WHERE DID YOU GET THIS? JEST WHAT THE HELL DO YA'LL THINK YER DOIN' TAKIN' UNAUTHORICIZED PICTURES OF ME?!

I'm callin' the police. Ain't no reason any decent, red-blooded woodchuck citizen of these United States should have to worry about this here kind o' stalkery.

I work with the HSA (Hedgehog Security Agency), and my job is to take pictures of fellow rodents who risk blowing their cover to the humans. You will have your chance to blow some stuff up mate, patience.

goldwynaut
01-29-2012, 04:57 PM
a woodchuck could chuck all the woods if a woodchuck could chuck wood but a woodchuck can never chuck chuck norris:biggrin:

Frost Dragon
02-17-2012, 11:19 PM
FOOLS! As that creepy guy who hides in your trash can on the third Wednesday of every other month who has no authority over you whatsoever, I declare your formula as flawed! I found this one from some stupid thing on wiki answers. BEHOLD!
Using the formula: (W + I) * C where W = the constant of wood, which is well known to be 61, as agreed in many scientific circles. I = the variable in this equation, and stands for the word "if" from the original problem. As there are three circumstances, with 0 equaling the chance that the woodchuck cannot chuck wood, 1 being the theory that the woodchuck can chuck wood but chooses not to, and 2 standing for the probability that the woodchuck can and will chuck wood, we clearly must choose 2 for use in this equation. C = the constant of Chuck Norris, whose presence in any problem involving the word chuck must there, is well known to equal 1.1 of any known being, therefore the final part of this calculation is 1.1. As is clear, this appears to give the answer of (61 + 2) * 1.1 = (63) * 1.1 = 69.3. However, Chuck Norris' awesome roundhouse kick declares that all decimal points cannot be used in formulas such as this, and so it must be rounded to the final solution of 69 units of wood.

Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_much_wood_would_a_woodchuck_chuck_if_a_woodchu ck_could_chuck_wood#ixzz1mgiDG98X

Oh yeah! How much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a woodchuck could chuck could chuck wood? A woodchuck could chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood. But if a woodchuck could chuck as much wood as a woodchuck could chuck if a woodchuck could chuck wood, how much wood could a woodchuck chuck if a would chuck could Chuck Norris?

JentleViolence
02-18-2012, 12:14 AM
LOL no joke, I had this as an AP Chemistry essay on...Thursday. It was all about calculating solubilities and all of this and then my teacher puts up the essay on the board and it's this exact same question!

So I came up with an even...different? formula than someone listed before. Mine was

Woodchucking Power = (K * Strength of teeth or whatever/ sun's mass) x 100 with K being the woodchucking constant. => I hope I got an A on that!

Professor Geoffrey
02-19-2012, 04:54 AM
Assuming that a woodchuck could chuck wood, calculating the wood a woodchuck could chuck if it really could chuck wood, would chuck the whole theory that woodchucks could not really chuck wood, because if they could chuck wood, what woodchuck would chuck wood that a woodchuck had already chucked, therefore disproving the notion that chucked wood of a woodchuck could still be chucked by a woodchuck. Furthermore, whether or not a woodchuck could chuck wood is unproven.

Flaming Compound
03-02-2012, 06:16 PM
What???

Teddiursa of the Sky
03-02-2012, 07:42 PM
Assuming that a woodchuck could chuck wood, calculating the wood a woodchuck could chuck if it really could chuck wood, would chuck the whole theory that woodchucks could not really chuck wood, because if they could chuck wood, what woodchuck would chuck wood that a woodchuck had already chucked, therefore disproving the notion that chucked wood of a woodchuck could still be chucked by a woodchuck. Furthermore, whether or not a woodchuck could chuck wood is unproven.

I understood that O_o, and it actually does not disprove the fact that woodchucks can or cannot chuck wood.