I hope you don't mind citations, since they mean this work is not entirely "original" by me.
Ya otta tell Science magazine...They publish work with citations all the time.
Anyway, are here funny I some jokes thought.
http://www.physlink.com/Fun/Jokes.cfm
Samples:
French physicist Ampere (17751836) had two cats, one big and a one small, and he loved them very much. But when the door was closed cats couldn't enter or exit the room. So Ampere ordered two holes to be made in his door: one big for the big cat, and one small for the small cat. (credit: Marga  unverified story)
Heisenberg is out for a drive when he's stopped by a traffic cop. The cop says "Do you know how fast you were going?" Heisenberg says "No, but I know where I am."
http://www.ahajokes.com/sci17.html
Samples:
It is disconcerting to reflect on the number of students we have flunked in chemistry for not knowing what we later found to be untrue. quoted in Robert L. Weber, Science With a Smile (1992)
Chemist's last words
The last words of a chemist:
1. And now the tasting test.
2. May that become hot?
3. And now a little bit from this...
4. ... and please keep that test tube alone!
5. And now shake it a bit.
6. Why is there no label on this bottle?
7. In which glass was my mineral water?
8. The bunsen burner *is* out!
9. Why does that stuff burn with a green flame?!?
10. *H* stands for Nitrogen  and that does *not* burn...
11. Oh, now I have spilt something...
12. First the acid, then the water...
13. And now the detonating gas problem.
14. This is a completely save experimental setup.
15. Where did I put my gloves?
16. O no, wrong beaker...
17. The fire alarm is just being tested.
18. Now you can take the protection window away...
19. And now keep it constant at 24 degrees celsius, 25... 26... 27...
20. Peter can you please help me. Peter!?! Peeeeeteeeeer?!?!?!?
21. I feel it how long 15 seconds are!
22. Something is wrong here...
23. Where do all those holes in my kettle come from?
24. Trust me  I know what I am doing.
25. And now a cigarette...
http://www.xs4all.nl/~jcdverha/scijokes/
The Top 15 Signs American Students are Lacking Math and Science Skills
15  Typical science student thinks the Energizer Bunny disproves that "conservation of energy" theory.
14  They think "Bill Nye the Science Guy" is a grunge band.
13  Hilarious "Top 5" list by purported high school graduate always has 12 or more entries.
12  One, they can't count. Three, they can't add.
11  And the number 3 sign that American Students Are Lacking Math and Science Skills...
10  Ranks of chemists thinned by constant mistaking of H2SO4 for H2O.
9  Hey, it's tough counting the number of beers in a six pack.
8  If they can't find a Number 2 pencil for a test, they bring half of a Number 3.
7  Most students can't locate the earth on a globe.
6  Science Fair project demonstrates Space Shuttle fuel consumption using bottle of Tequila & lemon wedges.
5  "Algorithm" may sound like liquoredup Vice President bustin' a move, but it's not.
4  Your child consistently confuses "PiRSquared" with "Pizza Pizza."
3  Then: Intricate handmade bombs with precise triggering mechanisms. Now: Ryder truck filled with cow manure.
2  Actually, six out of five math teachers say there's no problem whatsoever.
and the Number 1 Sign American Students are Lacking Math and Science Skills... 1  "5 + 3 equals... Hey! 'Melrose' is on!"
PROOF TECHNIQUES
written by Armen H. Zemanian, published in The Physics Teacher, May 1994.
The usual techniques for proving things are often inadequate because they
are merely concerned with truth. For more practical objectives, there are
other powerful  but generally unacknowledged  methods. Here is an
(undoubtedly incomplete) list of them:
Proof of Blatant Assertion: Use words and phrases like
"clearly...,""obviously...,""it is easily shown that...," and "as any fool
can plainly see..."
Proof by Seduction: "If you will just agree to believe this, you might get
a better final grade."
Proof by Intimidation: "You better believe this if you want to pass the
course."
Proof by Interruption: Keep interrupting until your opponent gives up.
Proof by Misconception: An example of this is the Freshman's Conception of
the Limit Process: "2 equals 3 for large values of 2." Once introduced, any
conclusion is reachable.
Proof by Obfuscation: A long list of lemmas is helpful in this case  the
more, the better.
Proof by Confusion: This is a more refined form of proof by
obfuscation. The long list of lemmas should be arranged into circular
patterns of reasoning  and perhaps more baroque structures such as
figureeights and fleursdelis.
Proof by Exhaustion: This is a modification of an inductive proof. Instead
of going to the general case after proving the first one, prove the second
case, then the third, then the fourth, and so on  until a sufficiently
large n is achieved whereby the nth case is being propounded to a soundly
sleeping audience.
More proof methods: Proof by passion: The author gives the proof with a lot
of passion,
expressive eyes and vigorous movements...
Proof by example: The author gives only the case n = 2 and suggests that
it contains most of the ideas of the general proof.
Proof by intimidation: 'Trivial.'
Proof by vigorous handwaving: Works well in a classroom or seminar
setting.
Proof by cumbersome notation: Best done with access to at least four
alphabets and special symbols.
Proof by exhaustion: An issue or two of a journal devoted to your proof
is useful.
Proof by omission: 'The reader may easily supply the details.' 'The other
253 cases are analogous.' '...'
Proof by obfuscation: A long plotless sequence of true and/or
meaningless syntactically related statements.
Proof by wishful citation:
The author cites the negation, converse, or generalization of a
theorem from literature to support his claims.
Proof by funding: How could three different government agencies be
wrong?
Proof by personal communication: 'Eightdimensional colored cycle
stripping is NPcomplete [Karp, personal communication].'
Proof by reduction to the wrong problem: 'To see that infinite
dimensional colored cycle stripping is decidable, we reduce it to
the halting problem.'
Proof by reference to inaccessible literature: The author cites a simple
corollary of a theorem to be found in a privately circulated memoir
of the Slovenian Philological Society, 1883.
Proof by importance: A large body of useful consequences all follow from
the proposition in question.
Proof by accumulated evidence: Long and diligent search has not revealed
a counterexample.
Proof by cosmology: The negation of the proposition is unimaginable or
meaningless. Popular for proofs of the existence of God.
Proof by mutual reference: In reference A, Theorem 5 is said to follow
from Theorem 3 in reference B, which is shown from Corollary 6.2 in
reference C, which is an easy consequence of Theorem 5 in reference
A.
Proof by metaproof: A method is given to construct the desired proof.
The correctness of the method is proved by any of these techniques.
Proof by picture: A more convincing form of proof by example. Combines
well with proof by omission.
Proof by vehement assertion: It is useful to have some kind of authority
in relation to the audience.
Proof by ghost reference: Nothing even remotely resembling the cited
theorem appears in the reference given.
Proof by forward reference: Reference is usually to a forthcoming paper
of the author, which is often not as forthcoming as at first.
Proof by semantic shift: Some standard but inconvenient definitions are
changed for the statement of the result.
Proof by appeal to intuition: Cloudshaped drawings frequently help
here.
