Pastafarium May 31, 2008

Pastafarium

By Guest Contributor
May 31, 2008

If that’s not an element, it should be.

I mean, Flying Spaghetti Monster is already an organic compound…:

psv1.jpg

Would anyone like to venture a guess as to the name of that compound?

(via Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster)


[tags]atheist, atheism[/tags]

Previous Post
Wacky Science Spectrum
Next Post
American Atheists Board Member Steps Down
Browse Our Archives
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment

  • Glucose?

  • Richard Wade

    Has methyl groups, with a little tweaking you could have two ethyl alcohol molecules, got enough Carbon and Hydrogen but not enough Oxygen for sugar, but I won’t pretend to know this stuff, I give up.

  • Ulrich

    Glucose is much smaller than this molecule, with only six carbon atoms. If the rings are supposed to be aromatic, it is a naphthalene derivate. It could possibly be called 2,3,4,5,6,7-hexapropyl-1,8-naphthaldehyde, but I’d have to ask a chemist to make sure, not to mention find out what it’s good for 😀

  • Ian

    Ulrich, surely it would begin with 2,3,4,5,6,7-hexamethyl, not hexapropyl, I am doing A level chemistry, but please, tell me why i’m wrong (or preferably right)

    The CH3 is the Methyl group, whereas the propyl functional group you suggested would be C3H7

  • sigma147

    Science-mode ACTIVATE!!

    It’s 2,3,4,6,7,8-hexapropylbicyclo[4.4.0]deca-1,9-dial – note that each carbon chain on the bicyclo[4.4.0]decane system is three carbons long (hence the propyl designation). Ulrich is correct with his designation if this were an aromatic system, but as drawn it is saturated. That said, Ulrich would be equally as correct in naming this 2,3,4,5,6,7-hexapropyldecahydro-1,8-naphthaldehyde.

    It’s not an element – it’s a molecule made up of the elements carbon, hydrogen, and oxygen (hence an organic compound). An element is something you’d find in the period table of the elements and is differentiated from other elements by the number of protons and neutrons that is has.

    Science-mode off.

    sigma147

  • Thoracantha

    Ian, the side chains contain three carbons. Use the two sixmember rings as the starting point.

  • cautious

    The great thing about having failed out of organic chemistry in college is that I both don’t know what this compound is, and am pissed off at myself that I don’t know what it is.

  • The burning question is “can those Methyl appendages move”?

  • Richard Wade

    It’s somehow strangely reassuring to know that the High Priests of Pastamistry can disagree about the nature of His Noodliness just as much as theologians can disagree about the nature of their gods.

    We’re in good hands (and appendages.)

  • Ian

    Ahh, OK, I ignored the Carbons between the rings and the CH3.

    In my defense, we have not learnt about aromatic systems yet… and I am also very prone to silly errors.

  • Ulrich

    Ah, thanks, Sigma. So I wasn’t that far off 😀

    What’s the meaning of the [4.4.0] part, though?

  • Ahh, OK, I ignored the Carbons between the rings and the CH3.

    In your defense, those CH3‘s are redundant. We would assume that’s how the propyl groups terminated even if the CH3‘s weren’t explicitly expressed.

  • Richard Wade

    It sounds like you have come to a consensus. So, what is it?

  • ASC

    The [4,4,0] describes the number of atoms in the double ring. Note that two of the carbons are attached to three other carbons (making them members of both rings). The longest route between these two atoms has four carbons, as does the second, while the shortest route has no carbon atoms between them.

  • chatterbox

    Pastafarium would be a great name for an element. Would we want to petition to rename an existing element, or wait for another one to be discovered? I’m a bit surprised that so many people didn’t realize your first line referred back to the post title, not the compound in the post.