Talk:Lunar bukkake hypothesis/Archive1

Photoshoot
I propose a RW photoshoot for this article in which one of us dresses up like the moon and everyone else ejaculates onto them. Who wants to be the moon? Not it! 16:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Why not? I volunteer to be the moon. 16:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * At the very least we owe it to this article to provide better images...if not a photoshoot, we could at least do some photoshopping. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * You're all going to hell. 16:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Another problem with the comet portion
There is another stupidity within the comet section.

Most comets are on huge, elliptical orbits with semimajor axes of a lightyear. Many of them billions of kilometers from the sun at this point. How could water ejected from the planet by the suggested mechanism POSSIBLY do that, especially given it needs to happen in less than 5000 Terran years? &mdash; Unsigned, by: 70.30.6.101 / talk / contribs
 * I've added a brief mention of it. It's one of the more fundamental problems, but I don't think it's the funniest. 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)

Um I disagree with the physics.
The lunar bukake theory does not depend on all of the water spurting out all over the moon, only some of it going that far. Yes it is true that the hydraulic pressure could only move the water the distance that is proportional to the relative densities of the material and the distance traveled, but what if it were using that energy to move some of the water? I don't know how it might work, but it seems possible to me to shoot say 1% of the water to the desired altitude while the rest of the water went to a less than maximal altitude. I am obviously not a creationist, I'm just not sure that the challenge to this ri-dick-ulous theory is 100% accurate. --Opcn (talk) 08:27, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Obviously the physics discussed is only approximation and relies on a simplified model that was used because of the round numbers and the simple 10:1 ratio of rock and water. It illustrates that the energy from collapsing rock as discussed in the "theory" is insufficient to transfer a significant amount of water to the moon. Considering the back-of-an-envelope calculation discussed in the article the water does not even break the atmosphere, having the energy to travel only 40 km upwards. But one could, in principle, add your objection to the physical calculations and refine it further. As the moon is stated as 10,000 times further away than the physics would allow a full cubic kilometre of water travel, it is possible to calculate that only 0.0001 km^3 (100,000 m^2, or 0.01% compared to your 1%!) of water would be capable of reaching the moon. This, however, is assuming all energy from the 10 km^3 of rock stated in the model was transferred into that smaller packet of water and that any other water remained stationary and unaffected. So given this particular approximation, the "reality" would be that even less water would actually be capable of reaching the moon as the energy would be dissipated across the full volume of water. Perhaps 0.01% of the 0.01%, a mere 10 m^3 of water per cubic kilometre of water on Earth, would be given sufficient energy to reach the moon. This could be refined if someone would like to calculate the statistical distribution of energy transferred to the water, although I do not believe that would increase the amount of water capable of reaching the moon in this model over this quick estimate. We would then need to further reduce this by an additional factor of 4,000 as discussed in the "target size" section, reducing the amount of water actually reaching the moon even further. This section I think does take some liberties as you could expect a larger amount of water to be attracted by the moon's gravity, but again I do not believe that would significantly improve the model in the creationist's favour. In conclusion, even assuming a statistical distribution of energy that allows some water to travel to the moon and being generous with the amount that could actually reach it, it would not be sufficient to explain the cratering or the presence of water on the moon as proposed by this creationist model. Valjean (talk) 11:08, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

So apparently this was one big load...
http://www.conservativenewsandviews.com/2012/11/29/creation/mercury-ice-find-renews-old-riddle/

It managed to get all the way to Mercury, although how Venus missed it given its namesake it beyond me. Should this new development be reflected in the article? 147.138.90.129 (talk) 04:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * We should attempt to analyze it scientifically by computing the position of Venus at the time of the Flood. If Venus was in conjunction at the time then it would of course have been shielded by the sun.  Генгис silverbrain.png 11:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't currently have Celestia installed, but it sounds like a fun game to play. Scarlet A.pngtheist silverbrain.png 12:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)