Comments on: Pastafarium http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/ Atheism with Positivity Sun, 22 Nov 2009 23:24:00 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.6 hourly 1 By: chatterbox http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/comment-page-1/#comment-177515 chatterbox Mon, 02 Jun 2008 19:21:32 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/#comment-177515 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. 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.

]]> By: ASC http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/comment-page-1/#comment-177093 ASC Mon, 02 Jun 2008 08:22:45 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/#comment-177093 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. 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.

]]> By: Richard Wade http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/comment-page-1/#comment-175987 Richard Wade Sat, 31 May 2008 23:28:53 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/#comment-175987 It sounds like you have come to a consensus. So, what is it? It sounds like you have come to a consensus. So, what is it?

]]> By: The Science Pundit http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/comment-page-1/#comment-175900 The Science Pundit Sat, 31 May 2008 19:29:13 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/#comment-175900 <blockquote>Ahh, OK, I ignored the Carbons between the rings and the CH3.</blockquote> In your defense, those <em>CH3</em>'s are redundant. We would assume that's how the propyl groups terminated even if the <em>CH3</em>'s weren't explicitly expressed.

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.

]]> By: Ulrich http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/comment-page-1/#comment-175899 Ulrich Sat, 31 May 2008 19:27:55 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/#comment-175899 Ah, thanks, Sigma. So I wasn't that far off :D What's the meaning of the [4.4.0] part, though? Ah, thanks, Sigma. So I wasn’t that far off :D

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

]]> By: Ian http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/comment-page-1/#comment-175858 Ian Sat, 31 May 2008 18:27:23 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/#comment-175858 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. 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.

]]> By: Richard Wade http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/comment-page-1/#comment-175818 Richard Wade Sat, 31 May 2008 17:24:07 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/#comment-175818 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.) 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.)

]]> By: Jeff http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/comment-page-1/#comment-175804 Jeff Sat, 31 May 2008 16:51:28 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/#comment-175804 The burning question is "can those Methyl appendages move"? The burning question is “can those Methyl appendages move”?

]]> By: cautious http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/comment-page-1/#comment-175790 cautious Sat, 31 May 2008 16:11:24 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/#comment-175790 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 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.

]]> By: Thoracantha http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/comment-page-1/#comment-175785 Thoracantha Sat, 31 May 2008 16:01:56 +0000 http://friendlyatheist.com/2008/05/31/pastafarium/#comment-175785 Ian, the side chains contain three carbons. Use the two sixmember rings as the starting point. Ian, the side chains contain three carbons. Use the two sixmember rings as the starting point.

]]>