| There is no RationalWiki without you. We are a small non-profit with no staff – we are hundreds of volunteers who document pseudoscience and crankery around the world every day. We will never allow ads because we must remain independent. We cannot rely on big donors with corresponding big agendas. We are not the largest website around, but we believe we play an important role in defending truth and objectivity. If everyone seeing this today donates $5, we will meet our goal for 2019. |
Fighting pseudoscience isn't free. We are 100% user-supported! Help and donate $5, $20 or whatever you can today with |
Talk:Lunar bukkake hypothesis
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! SJ Debaser 16:38, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- Why not? I volunteer to be the moon. The Spikey Punk I'm punking my punk! 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.
theist 16:45, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
- You're all going to hell.
- 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)
Contents
Another problem with the comet portion[edit]
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? — 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.
theist 00:10, 22 November 2010 (UTC)
Um I disagree with the physics.[edit]
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...[edit]
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.
ГенгисYou have the right to be offended; and I have the right to offend you.
11:09, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't currently have Celestia installed, but it sounds like a fun game to play.
theist
12:12, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
- I don't currently have Celestia installed, but it sounds like a fun game to play.
Steam[edit]
I took out a section earlier because I had trouble understanding how it all fit together. I sort of get what it's trying to say - calculating the energy required or released from steam, but it wasn't really clear enough to figure out.
d hominem
12:19, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
Other YECs[edit]
Has this... argument... seen use by any creationists other than Neph? Frostbyte (talk) 09:24, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Hydroplate 'theory' in general, yes, that's practically mainstream. And a few saying that the water accounts for comets. Not many specifically go so far as to use that as the direct explanation of how the moon is covered in craters.
Don't click here 09:38, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
- Was primarily curious about this particular variation. Grazie. Frostbyte (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- AiG specifically says the moon was hit by meteors, not comets nor water. But I did find this bit of derp
Don't click here 08:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- "[H]it by craters"?
- Re the AiG link: why the EFF would a god who, forget not, only slightly before created earth, sun, moon, planets and stars ex nihilo, need meteors to perform such a trivial task as splitting a planet's crust? These folk make me ill. Scream!! (talk) 09:42, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- They're using the trappings of science to try to prove the Bible, which kind of misses the whole point. SophieWilder
09:55, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Tyop. Fixed it.
Don't click here 10:20, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
- Tyop. Fixed it.
- They're using the trappings of science to try to prove the Bible, which kind of misses the whole point. SophieWilder
- AiG specifically says the moon was hit by meteors, not comets nor water. But I did find this bit of derp
- Was primarily curious about this particular variation. Grazie. Frostbyte (talk) 02:14, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
Uses of the bukkake[edit]
A very good Scrabble word if you get both blanks and can a clearance out of it. 86.191.125.232 (talk) 22:29, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
My two cents (again)[edit]
I don't see at all why they're obsessed with the Great Flood when it shows the worst of God -basically not omnipotent and unable to clean the mess in other way- --93.191.139.9 (talk) 09:16, 22 April 2017 (UTC)
Is this theory[edit]
Moonshine?
Or did the water go via Crammer? Anna Livia (talk) 15:26, 10 August 2018 (UTC)