I work as a scientist in the area of coating nanotechnology, or more precisely in the development of so called nano sputtering methods. Nano sputtering is a way to position single atoms or clusters of many atoms onto a surface to form a pattern with a nanometer thickness. Often the result is rather random; it is a little bit like firing off a shotgun against a wall with the atoms as shots. My research is aiming for methods to fine-tune the sputtering in order to achieve a desired pattern and thickness instead of just a random pattern, and I did recently a quite fantastic discovery I would like to disclose at your web site. An important parameter is the Diertmann-Zeigler value (d/z value) which easily can be understood as the lateral spin energy of the atom when the Möbier coefficient is set to 1 in the equation below:
When the d/z value is continually changed from 0.24 (which is focal zero point) to 9.56 (which is van Haank’s theoretical maximum) the achieved atom pattern should according to the theory be totally random. However, according to my findings there is one single value (d/z = 1.115) which does not give a random pattern, but always exactly the same pattern (see below).
The d/z value 1.115 is equal to π/e and obviously a natural constant which I hereby would like to denominate the spaghetti constant s.
Dr. Erik Ronne
Connect
Contribute
The Church of the FSM is always looking for content. Details here
Support the Cause
The Church is funded entirely by your purchases of FSM merchandise. Thank you for your support.
Purchase the Gospel
Purchase from
Amazon.com
Purchase from BN.com
An elaborate spoof on Intelligent Design, The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster is neither too elaborate nor too spoofy to succeed in nailing the fallacies of ID. It's even wackier than Jonathan Swift's suggestion that the Irish eat their children as a way to keep them from being a burden, and it may offend just as many people, but Henderson, described elsewhere as a 25-year-old "out-of-work physics major," puts satire to the same serious use that Swift did. Oh, yes, it is very funny. -- Scientific American
Give
Propaganda Buttons
Add these buttons to your site:
Miscellaneous
Bobby's Blog
Contact Bobby: Contact Me
His noodly presence is everywhere.We are blessed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
lol
til last paragraph I was thinking if it was a casualty or a joke.
pi/e = ?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
One word… w00ts!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
hahaha this is the ultimate evidence of his noodleness!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Suck on that, unbelievers!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
You see! You see! Hard, irrefutable proof! Mathematically driven formulae to reveal His Noodly Works. Much better then a stain on an overpass or some moldy toast…
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Clouds, weeds, smoke and now nanosputter.
I think we are facing a very real danger of becoming a real religion.
Does belief in a god cause it to become more real?
Is the reality retroactive?
What’s that over there?
Who said that?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Cool!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
According to Wolfram, pi/e = 1.1557273497909217179100931833126962991208510231644158204997…
You sure it’s 1.155, or 1.115?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is so fucking perfect! His Noodleyness has proved His holy existence to us through this!
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
“…which easily can be understood as the lateral spin energy of the atom when the Möbier coefficient is set to 1 in the equation below:”
Right. Piece of cake. That didn’t make my brain explode or anything…
That being said, this is pretty freaking cool!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Is FSM considered a “religion”? I mean by you believers. Just wondering if you consider it a religion or a belief, cause I dont like religions, but this website is freaking awesome.
I found it by mistake a few hours ago but now I think it was destiny. I think this is hilarious but also a serious belief for strong-minded people. Not everyone can go on the streets and tell their friends “I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster”, so they can say: “OMG what? Are j00 st00pid? There’s no such thing!”.
However, how can anyone really know what really exists and what doesnt? There’s no real proof of any God’s existence, at the end it all goes down to personal beliefs and faith, so wether it is a man with a beard (Jesus – Christians), a spaghetti monster (FSM) or a vampire (Wyccans), the only important thing (IMO) is our faith on it, what are our intentions with it, and how it changes our lives and others’s.
So as long as this belief, religion, cult or whatever it is, has noble intentions and /unlike *most* of the religions out there who will slap/degradate anyone who believes in something different) you “live and let live”, then consider me a new follower.
Excuse me for any spelling mistakes.
Yours,
Luis, a new believer.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
His Holy Noodles have graced us with their presence!
All hail His Holyness!
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Wow, i am now completely convinced and consider myself a full convert.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I’m an ardent believer in the holy spaghetti, but in the name of skepticism, this seems too coincidental to be true. If it isn’t, obviously it’s tres cool. I’d love to see some further explanation of the physics of this.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
Irrefutible proof that FSM and not God is the one true lord. He has hidden himself and it is only now through technology can we find his answers.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
How could one doubt the FSM after witnessing such glory! Perhaps we should designate 1.115 to be a special number, or a sign of the FSM?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Ok. So you can make his holy presence with atoms, but can you also do it with a shotgun? I am convinced that if shot with his noodlyness then you are bound to the rolling fields of endless noodly goodness.
I’m coming!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Awesome. Another veil removed.
RAmen
ET
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Step One: Cook Spaghetti/Noodles
Step Two: Combine
Step Three: Splatter like atoms on wall
Step Four: d/x= 1.115
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
HAHAHA! The FSM again tampering with scientific experiments! That’s what He does best. He’s so Funny (and so Great, so Delicious and so True). Thanks Erik for revealing His Noodly humour yet again.
May you be sputtered by nanometers of Sauce in a Noodly pattern.
RAmen!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Luis @12, the thing is that knowing and believing are two very different things. I know who buys my kid´s presents on christmas (that would be me) but I choose to believe in Santa. Get it? Enough evidence can take you from believing to knowing. Dr. Ronne, through his research, has found that a FSM-like shape is formed every time a constant of constants is used! Imagine that! No other god has been able to achieve this! Yes, it could be a coincidence but more and more evidence of His “works” is becoming available.
Do we KNOW if His Noodliness exist? Nope. However, given the supporting evidence we BELIEVE He does. Pastafarianism is a religion in the very strict sense mostly to annoy people. In practice, we are more like a a freethinkers club. We do not like dogma and do not care for fundamentalism. That should put us far enough from being a religion.
Maybe His Noodliness is not unintelligent as we once thought.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@ Dr. Ronne:
The Pastafarian community owes you many kudos. Excepting, of course, Bobby’s Own Observations, your contribution has pushed the Church of His Noodliness far ahead of the only remotely comparable body of work: the scholarly but unfortunately misguided and mistaken contributions of the Jesuits. If a mere Prize were at issue, you should certainly look for a tuxedo to rent, but…this is of course up to His Noodliness…perhaps a mansion in the Vale of Vermicelli….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Yeah but can you make the Virgin Mary too?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Priceless.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Pip said “…which easily can be understood as the lateral spin energy of the atom when the Möbier coefficient is set to 1 in the equation below:” Right. Piece of cake. That didn’t make my brain explode or anything…
Pip: I do admit that it is a rather rough (but indeed commonly accepted) approximation to simply set the Möbier coefficient to 1, and I do also understand that it might make the intuitive interpretation of the equation somewhat less obvious. However, without this approximation the mathematics become considerably more complex and the d/z value would only be possible to calculate by iterative methods. My feeling is that these calculations would be of less interest at this website, but if requested I would not hesitate to make them available for the community.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
All hail his Noodly Holiness!
In all seriousness, I don’t really understand how and why this particular atom pattern is being formed. I can’t really tell whether it is a true phenomenon or whether it is just a joke made for this website.
But if it IS true, and there is now a constant that will be colloquially (or officially) called the spaghetti constant, I must give this my personal seal of approval and say that that IS ABSOLUTELY EPIC!
o/ FSM
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
@Luis- This is satire. Or it’s not. Because you can see how serious we are all the time (Eyeroll).
@The Doctor- We owe you for this, but it’s been a long time since I’ve done any serious studying of anything “nano.” :( I need to dig out my old textbooks, but I think I got the gist of what you have said.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
on seeing this i have remembered that a good friend of mine, while goofing off in his calc class made a very very good and detailed equation of the All Powerful FSM now i wish i had taken a picture but i must say this is a beautiful set proof
Pastafarian M, Waldo
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
*kzzzzzrrrtt*
That Noise war me brains fizzlin’ out like a sea-moistened torch Maitee! Alas, I be naught but I simple Pirate Captain and not a doctor is Physics, But the main picture be apparent!
Long Live the FSM!
RAmen!
Cap’m RedTom
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
The FSM keeps playing with my data, or maybe Excel -Bill Gates again, I knew the maccarroni got him!- don’t want to acknowledge the True. Fact is, I keep having 1.16 as the result of Pi/e.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Conversion is easy as 1, 2, 3 !!! All hail the FSM!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Detcader wrote “According to Wolfram, pi/e = 1.1557273497909217179100931833126962991208510231644158204997…
You sure it’s 1.155, or 1.115?”
Detcader:
Your comment on the quotient of п divided with e is relevant and a short explanation is indeed needed. As we all remember from the school book Euclidean trigonometry the approximate value of п is ~3.141592…, hence п/e is equal to ~1.155727349790… Quite correct. I appreciate your sharp-eyed accuracy. However, this approximation is only true in Newton’s classical three dimensional universe, or more precisely at the two dimensional Euclidean surface. In quantum mechanics especially at relativistic speeds close to the speed of light one has to calculate п not only in two or three dimensions but in four with the time as the fourth dimension. This four dimensional room, often called spacetime, exhibits a curvature around gravimetric centrums such as the sputtered gold atoms, as when you place a billiard ball on a rubber sheet. This phenomena will bend the two dimensional Euclidean circle into a so called dis-focal super concave circle, having a slightly different relation between radius and area. From the equation A = r2 * п we can easily calculated the Euclidean п to ~3.1415… However, when the same equation is applied to a super concave circle the approximate value of п will instead be ~3.030884239…, hence giving the sugested spaghetti constant s. To distinguish between the Euclidean п and the relativistic super concave п the latter is sometimes denoted with the pi-character turned upside down: ц. I should of have done that, but I thought it was quite obvious from the context that it was the super concave п I was referring to. Thanks anyway.
The precision was also brought up to discussion. Both п and ц are irrational and can therefore only be approximated, and that is also true for the d/z value as well as for the proposed spaghetti constant s, at least when the Möbier coefficient is set to 1 (see the discussion in earlier comments). I assume that n.nnn? allude to said irrationality, which I prefer to denote by writing ~n.nnn… If I anywhere in the text has written n.nnn insteat of ~n.nnn… it was simply due to my eagerness to disclose my results, and it should be read ~n.nnn….
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
For I have been touched by His Noodley Appendage, Ramen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I feel sort of bad saying this, but to those of you who are uncertain as to whether this is true or not, I can assert only that I have found no evidence of either the “Möbier coefficient” or “Diertmann-Zeigler”. Add to that how pi/e is not the stated value (a mistake no self-respecting physicist would make, I assure you), and the evidence is fairly conclusive. I would love to be proved otherwise, though.
This is a nice idea, and a fairly convincing piece of satire. Perhaps too convincing; it sort of misses the satire mark.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Thou shalt be touched by his noodly appearance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is truly awesome. Thank you for sharing with your fellow pastafarians. Every day my belief in FSM and His Noodly Appendages grows stronger.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
This is undoubtedly the coolest FSM-related thing I have ever heard. Think about how cool it is that of all the nonrandom patterns that could have appeared, the one that did resembles the FSM! Holy Crap, that is so awesome. Especially because the number is π/e, that just adds significance.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
you all have got to be kidding me. jesus is more believable than this shit. i dont mean to insult anyones beliefs bu seriously, its just a cluster of dots. this “FSM” is ridiculous
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
this is insane, truly insane, i love it!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Science #39,
Hmmm…I suppose if a cluster of dots resembling Cheesuz showed up on a tortilla somewhere in Mexico, that would be a miracle, right?
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
is #39 for real?? NO WAY dude you can’t be serious. That was worse than the people who think EdwardCurrent on Youtube is really a Christian. LOL
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
And yet, in face of this undeniable evidence, there are still some people out there who will doubt the greatness of His Noodleness.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
It is He, it is He! Hee hee hee.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Nick said: “I feel sort of bad saying this, but to those of you who are uncertain as to whether this is true or not, I can assert only that I have found no evidence of either the “Möbier coefficient” or “Diertmann-Zeigler”.”
Nick:
Of course you should feel free sharing any information with this community you find important for our understanding of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It would make me said if you did not, and it did indeed make me said to hear that you are feeling bad.
I also think you bring up an important issue to discussion, with impact not only on the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but on any religion: the small step to disbelief which too easily can be induced by an unhealthy overuse of Google and Wikipedia. To formulated it frankly: it is absolutely too easy nowadays for anyone, which out any scientific education or any theological clear-sightedness to just check if things like the Möbier coefficient or the Diertmann-Zeigler value do exist. Well, they do exist: I used them in my equation, didn’t I? Moreover, they also exist on the World Wide Web, since a few weeks ago, and therefore, they ought to be true! But how can we who really believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster ever explain for the distrustful that Wikipedia perhaps not is the best way to salvation?
Ramen
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I could have done a better picture with MSPaint, but alas, I am not as blessed.
All Hail reasonably close facsimiles of the creator and call them divine!!
Peace and Pasta
-TooferMan
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
To #39 -SCIENCE, <<>>
YOU WROTE:
“you all have got to be kidding me. jesus is more believable than this shit. i dont mean to insult anyones beliefs but seriously, its just a cluster of dots. this “FSM” is ridiculous”
Well, SCIENCE,
We are not kidding you.
You THINK Jesus is more believable only because you THINK that FSM is not as believable as the FAITH you have learned from your birth til now.
You probably THINK that a lot of FAITHs are more believable than FSM, like Islam, but not quite as believable as Jesus. But a lot more people have FAITH in FSM than you THINK.
However, even some FAITHful religious types THINK that FSM is more believable than the FAITHs they were taught to believe from birth, such as Jesus. We’d like to THINK that this type of FAITH is a better way to THINK. In fact:
People now THINK that belief in their original FAITH was perhaps a misplaced belief, we THINK.
Those people now believe in a FAITH that rationalizes THINKing instead of belief, or FSM.
Even people without FAITH will THINK that FSM is more believable than Jesus.
This would make those FAITHless people ‘non-believers’, but still THINKers who believe nonsense.
Most people THINK that belief without proof is a matter of FAITH. Given that most FAITHs assume no proof need be presented, we THINK that your belief in our FAITH would be automatic, seeing as how your FAITH requires no proof and our FAITH offer strippers and beer.
If you THINK that your FAITH is better served by you, and our belief in what you THINK will compromise your FAITH, then believe me when I say that we don’t care what you THINK about our FAITH, and we believe you will THINK about why your FAITH fails to account for what we believe or why we THINK, as FAITHful believers, that your whole damned FAITH is mistaken!
Please THINK about your response regarding your beliefs on our FAITH.
I have FAITH that if you THINK about your beliefs, and THINK about our FAITH,
that you will believe our FAITH is the one true belief.
You say “Cluster of Dots”, I say “tomato”.
Hope that clears it up for you,
Forever, with tasty, tangled Pasta,
-TooferMan
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
A “dis-focal super concave circle”? Like another pointed out, the “Möbier coefficient” and the “Diertmann-Zeigler value”? Ha. This is definitely one of the best posts on this website ever. Although I must acknowledge that this is satire, it is incredibly well-done. It could almost be real.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
one, this is pretty dang cool. and two, in response to “science #39″, how is the Abrahamic God, one whom we can not experience with any of our senses, any more believable than a delicious monster made of my last night’s dinner? faith is defined as belief without proof. There is nothing that proves that the Abrahamic God created the universe. one can argue that the universe if proof enough, but there are so many alternative explanations; explanations that can be PROVED scientifically for instance. with that said, as a strong proponent of the first ammendment, youre just as entitled to your beliefs as pastafarians are to theirs. however, i believe that instead of discrediting other religions, we should learn as much as we can to make us better people from our own. theres no point in proseltysing; religious conflicts, as theyre are a result of almost every war, are not worth waging.
hope to have enlightened you.
RAmen.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
He looks like Australia. OMG! I’ve had a revelation, his Noodleness is in OZ!!!!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0