The Spaghetti Constant

Published June 22nd, 2009 by Bobby Henderson

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

60 Responses to “The Spaghetti Constant”

  1. Sean Boyd says:

    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?

  2. matt says:

    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

  3. YA says:

    And yet, in face of this undeniable evidence, there are still some people out there who will doubt the greatness of His Noodleness.

  4. Frank Vickers says:

    It is He, it is He! Hee hee hee.

  5. Dr. Erik Ronne says:

    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”.”

    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?


    • Greg says:

      Also, pi/e = 1.156, not 1.115. But that’s obviously just a transcription error.

  6. TooferMan says:

    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

  7. TooferMan says:

    To #39 -SCIENCE, <<>>
    “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,

  8. Julien says:

    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.

Leave a Reply