Boobquake Repost Pt. 1

April 26, 2010 - 2:28 pm
Irradiated by Stingray
Comments Off on Boobquake Repost Pt. 1

Lacking the appropriate equipment myself to contribute to the testing of whether immodest women cause earthquakes, I felt it appropriate to bring some extra science to the party. I’ve yet to receive any grant money to tie the tests on the Higgins’ Bosom particle in with plate tectonics, but I do have some ideas that just need some hands-on attention to bring everything together. In the mean time, and because I’m too busy trying to reconcile the theories, please enjoy this blast from the past, my original post on the Higgins’ Bosom particle.

Since Tam was curious and asked “What is it CERN is looking for again? Higgins’ bosom?”, I thought I’d help out and explained in her comments what they were questing for. To wit:

“Higgins’ bosom, or the fundamental breast particle, is a theoretical massive particle (as opposed to a massless one such as the Obaman-Honesteon) which gives suppleness and curvature mathematically defined as pleasing to the female breast.

In 2009, CERN will attempt experiments to isolate this particle by using high-energy magnetic fields to affect the wiring in a super-dense brassiere sample (density in excess of 30000 DD/m^3 – cup sizes per cubic meter). It is hoped that when the magnetic field is properly aligned, the underwiring will lift, separate, and support the Higgin’s Bosom particle, which will be recognized by all male physicists in the room staring slack-jawed and proclaiming “Damn!”

Critics and others without the necessary math and physics background to understand the experiment have voiced claims that isolating this particle would be dangerous in that the realignment of the underwire in the bra sample (or BS) could potentially reconfigure the matter into a permanently menstrual Barbra Streisand (again, BS – conservation of bras).”

Now since it was just a comment, I left a lot of ground uncovered, and I wouldn’t want folks to think this breast particle lacked proper support, so I thought I’d expand a bit here as to the nature of the Higgins’ Bosom particle and some of the history and science surrounding it.

Scientific historians frequently cite the original proposal for a fundamental breast particle as coming from every teenage male ever. They are wrong. The first to propose the Higgins’ Bosom is in fact the last girl in school to need a bra herself, and the particle was named of course for that bitch Mary Ellen Higgins who’s already up to a C-cup. I bet she’s a slut, too. From then on, the notion of a subatomic massive particle producing supple curves has been a favorite hobby-horse research field for the millions and millions of voice-cracking males normally credited with the theory.

Normally, the existance of a fundamental particle is a hotly debated subject. The battles fought in journals over quarks alone are staggering, and yet with the Higgins’ Bosom particle, nearly all parties agree that the theory is sound. No, the most divisive fights concerning this bit of research come in concerning nomenclature. The notation of DD/m^3, for instance, at one point led to a physical fight (pun, for once, not intended) at a conference in Paris when after a great many drinks, Dr. Alan Guth of MIT and Dr. Brian Greene of Columbia University took their disagreement over whether or not the DD cup size was too infrequent in unaugmented states to merit being the official unit of measurement outside to settle it. I assure you, if you have never seen two drunk physicists trying their best to fight like grown men, it’s a spectacle well worth the price of admission. (Dr. Guth won)

The exact mechanism by which the Higgins’ Bosom increases size, suppleness, and overall aesthetic remains murky at this point. Originally it was theorized that it was a massless particle, like a photon, as the positive effects of large concentrations was seen to decrease over time; however it was quickly pointed out that a massless particle would not be easily affected by any levels of gravity short of a singularity and as such we would not see as much sagging. The best supported current theory for how the particle actually improves a young lady’s bust is, refreshingly, reasonably simple to explain without an advanced math degree, at least to get the basics. In short, the Higgins’ Bosom is a multi-dimensional particle, existing in both our observable, measureable world, and another plane which we understand to require a lower base energy for the particle to exist. As a Higgins’ Bosom particle exists in our world, it essentially decays, and this emitted energy stimulates the mamary tissue, similarly to a helium tank filling a balloon. Once the particle no longer has sufficient energy to remain in our world, it returns to a base state in a dimension made entirely of Really Awesome Tatas** (which many researchers have taken to calling “heaven”). There, energetic interactions will occasionally bounce a Higgins’ Bosom back to the higher energy state, and back into our world where it can again do its great work.

*Further ensuring that 90% of our search traffic will involve some variant on “boobies.”
**This is not an oversimplification. Sometimes physics is weird.

No Responses to “Boobquake Repost Pt. 1”

  1. Tam Says:

    You should know that I laughed just as hard the second time ’round.

    That’s some funny stuff. 😀

  2. Firehand Says:

    I’m hopeless: I read Tam’s question and my first thought was “Higgins
    has a BOSOM?”