Molokini

  • 20 Replies
  • 1660 Views
*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +7/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Molokini
« on: April 07, 2025, 04:31:04 PM »
Just thought I'd pop back in here after a long hiatus to see if I can get an answer to a question that was never adequately addressed when I was on here before. Perhaps because it really needs a thread of its own: The little island of Molokini, about 2 3/4 miles from the nearest point of land on Maui, HI.

Wikipedia says that:

Quote
Molokini is a crescent-shaped, partially submerged volcanic crater which forms a small, uninhabited islet located in ʻAlalākeiki Channel between the islands of Maui and Kahoʻolawe, within Maui County in Hawaiʻi. It is the remains of one of the seven Pleistocene epoch volcanoes that formed the prehistoric Maui Nui island, during the Quaternary Period of the Cenozoic Era.

At present, Molokini consists of half of the rim of the ancient volcanic crater, in a semicircle, forming a partially-enclosed bay which is a popular snorkeling and scuba diving destination. (Scuba diving is mostly, though not always, on the back wall outside the bay, and snorkeling is mostly near the inside wall.)

Viewed from the north, you see into the crater/bay, and the rim or wall forms a flattened letter M: At its eastern side it rises from the water running north/south, then turns to run east/west and rises to a peak; it then dips down to a low spot at the back of the little bay and then rises to another peak, from which it descends again until at the western side the wall turns north-south and drops back into the sea.

Sometimes I describe it as a bactrian camel, though the "humps" of Molokini are not nearly so pronounced as those of the camel. The point here is that there are two high spots on the wall, with a lower portion between them.

From anywhere in Ma'alaea Bay you see Molokini as a single island with two high points.

That's the background for my question.

Now, we're always told that the ancients knew the Earth was curved because when a ship appears at the horizon, its sails are visible first and the hull later. But my problem is that my eyesight is not good enough to see a sailboat at the horizon at all. But Molokini is enormously bigger than a sailboat.

If, rather than starting in Ma'alaea Bay, you set out from Olowalu, which is several miles farther north, you cannot see Molokini at all. If you then travel south, towards Molokini, you will begin to discern what appear to be two small islands where you know Molokini to be. As you continue south, those islands appear to get bigger and bigger, until finally you can see that it is just one island, and what you were seeing were the two peaks of the crater wall just poking above the horizon line, while the bulk of the crater wall remained below the horizon.

Just as with the sailboat, but clearly visible without the need for exceptionally-good eyesight, the top of the island can be seen from farther away than the base of the island. This is exactly as would be expected on a curved surface: The top of a tall object is visible farther away than is the base.

If the Earth were flat one would expect the entire island to be visible in its entirety once one was close enough to see it. But that's not what happens. Instead, the top is visible first.

I have yet to see an explanation of this from the flat-earth perspective. And that is my question. Thank you.

*

hoppy

  • Flat Earth Believer
  • 11851
  • +5/-5
Re: Molokini
« Reply #1 on: April 08, 2025, 06:54:09 PM »
https://archive.org/details/zeteticastronom00rowbgoog

I hope this link works. I used to have a much better link divided in chapters. Check through here if you have never seen it.
God is real.                                         
http://www.scribd.com/doc/9665708/Flat-Earth-Bible-02-of-10-The-Flat-Earth

*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +7/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Molokini
« Reply #2 on: April 08, 2025, 09:13:11 PM »
Every single thing in that book has been thoroughly debunked over and over again.

Care to explain what I described above in your own words? I'm not going to read that ridiculous book, but if you care to explain in your own words I'll happily read what you have to say.

Again, to summarize, when approaching the island of Molokini from a distance to the north, and moving south, the top of the peaks appear first, and the base gradually as you get closer, exactly as would be expected on a round Earth, due to the curvature, but not on a flat one.

Care to explain, in your own words, why that does not demonstrate that the surface of the Earth is curved? Your own words, please, not cut and pasted from somebody else.

?

WISHTOLAUGH

  • 708
  • +3/-4
Re: Molokini
« Reply #3 on: April 10, 2025, 06:53:58 AM »
I do not know why you would expect to see the bottom of anything from miles away.

What is wrong with the people posting here?

*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +7/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Molokini
« Reply #4 on: April 11, 2025, 08:05:25 AM »
I do not know why you would expect to see the bottom of anything from miles away.

What is wrong with the people posting here?

If the Earth were flat the bottom would be just as visible as the top. If something were too far away to see the bottom, you would not be able to see the top either.

But on a round Earth the farther away something is, the taller it must be to be seen. And this is exactly what happens with Molokini (or any tall island): From very far away you cannot see it at all. As you approach it, you see the tip first, and as you keep getting closer you see more and more of it from the top down, until finally, up close, you see the whole thing.

The special thing about Molokini is that because it has two separate summits it is very obvious that it's not merely perspective (things appearing smaller when they're farther away) but rather that you're seeing the separated summits from farther away, and you see the connecting portion lower down only when you get closer.

This is consistent with a round Earth and would not happen if the Earth were flat.

*

JackBlack

  • 24512
  • +21/-44
Re: Molokini
« Reply #5 on: April 11, 2025, 04:50:34 PM »
I hope this link works. I used to have a much better link divided in chapters. Check through here if you have never seen it.
A link to a crappy book which explains nothing and just tries to use circular reasoning by starting with the baseless claim that Earth is flat to pretend that everything observed in reality means Earth is flat.

Perspective doesn't make things disappear from the bottom up, curvature does.
Perspective makes small things too hard to resolve, regardless of where they are on the object.

I do not know why you would expect to see the bottom of anything from miles away.
For a round Earth I don't because I know Earth will start blocking the view.
But for a flat Earth, with nothing blocking the view, why shouldn't I?
I know how my vision works. I can see things as long as they are large enough to resolve and nothing is blocking the view.
So for a flat Earth, where there is nothing to block my view, and the object is large enough to resolve, why can't I see it?


What is wrong with the people posting here?
Good question. What is wrong with you?

?

WISHTOLAUGH

  • 708
  • +3/-4
Re: Molokini
« Reply #6 on: April 14, 2025, 04:44:51 AM »
For things miles away on either a body of water or a body of land, both surface imperfections and lower atmoplanar conditions combine to suffice as the primary conditions impeding visual acuity and discernment of objects and their entire characteristics at surface level.

You RETARDS have a lot to learn.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2025, 04:51:52 AM by WISHTOLAUGH »

*

JackBlack

  • 24512
  • +21/-44
Re: Molokini
« Reply #7 on: April 14, 2025, 04:51:13 AM »
For things miles away on either a body of water or a body of land, both surface imperfections and lower atmoplanar conditions single-handedly suffice as the primary conditions impeding visual acuity and discernment of objects and their entire characteristics at surface level.
No, they don't.
Because those surface imperfections are below both the observer and the object being observed, and instead of just fading to black or a blur, we see the distant object appear to have sunk.

So no, neither of your excuses can explain it.
Do you know what can? The curvature of Earth.

?

WISHTOLAUGH

  • 708
  • +3/-4
Re: Molokini
« Reply #8 on: April 14, 2025, 04:52:54 AM »
^ A simple denial, with no basis in fact.

It is obvious air quality at levels near the surface impede observation of any objects (or their parts near) at the surface.

It is also obvious that surface imperfections serve to obscure the visibility of the same objects in the same ways.

The air quality higher up serves to allow visibility of the upper parts of sufficiently tall objects at far distances.

Just STFU, JackOffBlack.

You are a goddamn moran.


« Last Edit: April 14, 2025, 04:59:25 AM by WISHTOLAUGH »

*

JackBlack

  • 24512
  • +21/-44
Re: Molokini
« Reply #9 on: April 14, 2025, 05:23:26 AM »
^ A simple denial, with no basis in fact.
That does sum you up quite well.

It is obvious air quality at levels near the surface impede observation of any objects (or their parts near) at the surface.
It is also obvious that it can't explain why it looks like buildings have sunk into Earth.
We know what that would look like, with things like a foggy or smoky day, where things fade to a blur, rather than a sharp horizon with the bottom obstructured.

It is also obvious that surface imperfections serve to obscure the visibility of the same objects in the same ways.
No, in a quite different way.
In a way of light travelling from the object being observed to the observer being blocked by that surface imperfection.
Which requires the path of light to go through it.
That can't happen on a flat Earth with the object being observed and the observer both above those surface imperfections.


You are a goddamn moran.
If I'm a moran, what does that make you? Dumber than a rock?

?

WISHTOLAUGH

  • 708
  • +3/-4
Re: Molokini
« Reply #10 on: April 14, 2025, 05:45:03 AM »
a sharp horizon with the bottom obstructured.
Introducing something that has never existed is not a strong argument, fuckface.

It is also obvious that surface imperfections serve to obscure the visibility of the same objects in the same ways.
No, in a quite different way.
In a way of light travelling from the object being observed to the observer being blocked by that surface imperfection.
Which requires the path of light to go through it.
That can't happen on a flat Earth with the object being observed and the observer both above those surface imperfections.[/quote]
Incorrect, as it is happening on the flat earth plane as we speak.
You are a goddamn moran.
If I'm a moran, what does that make you? Dumber than a rock?
It leaves you as the goddam moran, appealing to fairy tales of shit that does not exist, while at the same time mind you, denying reality.
« Last Edit: April 14, 2025, 10:40:34 AM by WISHTOLAUGH »

*

BagetGunsInc

  • 54
  • +10/-4
Re: Molokini
« Reply #11 on: April 14, 2025, 09:24:58 AM »
Hot Topic magellanclavichord  should Jump of the FLAT EARTH.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +7/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Molokini
« Reply #12 on: April 14, 2025, 10:34:04 AM »
For things miles away on either a body of water or a body of land, both surface imperfections and lower atmoplanar conditions combine to suffice as the primary conditions impeding visual acuity and discernment of objects and their entire characteristics at surface level.

You RETARDS have a lot to learn.

This explanation is not sufficient because atmospheric conditions change from day to day, or even from hour to hour, and the phenomenon I described is seen RELIABLY any time you view Molokini as described. "Surface imperfections" on the ocean are just waves, and when I am out on the water there are never big waves because I don't go out in rough conditions.

Further, the island does not become blurry or distorted or hazy, as would be the case if atmospheric conditions were the cause. The atmosphere is not static. It's constantly changing and mixing. Any phenomenon caused by atmospheric conditions would likewise be constantly changing. Yet the island is CONSISTENTLY perfectly clear (on clear days, which is the only time I'm out there) and yet when approaching from a distance the top of the island appears first, which is really only explained by the curvature of the Earth.

And there's no need for personal insults. On either side.

Hot Topic magellanclavichord  should Jump of the FLAT EARTH.

What that a typo? Did you mean to say "jump off"? But I thought that flat-earthers say that there's a wall of ice preventing anybody from getting to the edge. But that's off topic because we're discussing the observed appearance of the island of Molokini.

I did once jump out of an airplane, but otherwise I refrain from jumping off of high places due to the risk of broken bones or death.  ::)

?

WISHTOLAUGH

  • 708
  • +3/-4
Re: Molokini
« Reply #13 on: April 14, 2025, 10:44:57 AM »
For things miles away on either a body of water or a body of land, both surface imperfections and lower atmoplanar conditions combine to suffice as the primary conditions impeding visual acuity and discernment of objects and their entire characteristics at surface level.

You RETARDS have a lot to learn.

This explanation is not sufficient because atmospheric conditions change from day to day, or even from hour to hour, and the phenomenon I described is seen RELIABLY any time you view Molokini as described. "Surface imperfections" on the ocean are just waves, and when I am out on the water there are never big waves because I don't go out in rough conditions.

Further, the island does not become blurry or distorted or hazy, as would be the case if atmospheric conditions were the cause. The atmosphere is not static. It's constantly changing and mixing. Any phenomenon caused by atmospheric conditions would likewise be constantly changing. Yet the island is CONSISTENTLY perfectly clear (on clear days, which is the only time I'm out there) and yet when approaching from a distance the top of the island appears first, which is really only explained by the curvature of the Earth.

And there's no need for personal insults. On either side.
Atmoplanar conditions are consistent enough to serve as an explanation as you are gullible enough to believe they are consistent at Point A, which you occupy, and the exact same at Point B, which you are observing, which is not true, especially on large bodies of water.

"Rough"...haahahahahaha...

Nobody said anything about "rough."

*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +7/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Molokini
« Reply #14 on: April 14, 2025, 11:10:52 AM »
For things miles away on either a body of water or a body of land, both surface imperfections and lower atmoplanar conditions combine to suffice as the primary conditions impeding visual acuity and discernment of objects and their entire characteristics at surface level.

You RETARDS have a lot to learn.

This explanation is not sufficient because atmospheric conditions change from day to day, or even from hour to hour, and the phenomenon I described is seen RELIABLY any time you view Molokini as described. "Surface imperfections" on the ocean are just waves, and when I am out on the water there are never big waves because I don't go out in rough conditions.

Further, the island does not become blurry or distorted or hazy, as would be the case if atmospheric conditions were the cause. The atmosphere is not static. It's constantly changing and mixing. Any phenomenon caused by atmospheric conditions would likewise be constantly changing. Yet the island is CONSISTENTLY perfectly clear (on clear days, which is the only time I'm out there) and yet when approaching from a distance the top of the island appears first, which is really only explained by the curvature of the Earth.

And there's no need for personal insults. On either side.
Atmoplanar conditions are consistent enough to serve as an explanation as you are gullible enough to believe they are consistent at Point A, which you occupy, and the exact same at Point B, which you are observing, which is not true, especially on large bodies of water.

"Rough"...haahahahahaha...

Nobody said anything about "rough."


No, atmospheric conditions are not consistent. Wind, rain, hurricanes, are all examples of the atmosphere getting stirred up. "Atmoplanar" conditions are not consistent at all. Not even a little.

You are the one who mentioned surface imperfections. When I'm on the water the "surface imperfections" are insignificant because I only go out in calm (i.e. not rough) ocean conditions. The only "surface imperfections" are waves too small to affect the view of the island.

*

JackBlack

  • 24512
  • +21/-44
Re: Molokini
« Reply #15 on: April 14, 2025, 12:35:33 PM »
Introducing something that has never existed is not a strong argument
Good thing I'm not.
Wilful rejection of reality because it doesn't fit your delusional fantasy just shows you utterly pathetic and have no integrity.

Incorrect, as it is happening on the flat earth plane as we speak.
Instead of just baselessly asserting pure BS, you try explaining to us how something entirely out of the line of sight can block the view and make something appear to sink.
Otherwise, you are just wilfully rejecting reality.

You are a goddamn moran.
If I'm a moran, what does that make you? Dumber than a rock?
It leaves you as the goddam moran, appealing to fairy tales of shit that does not exist, while at the same time mind you, denying reality.
So it leaves as someone truly to stupid to even be able to comprehend a trivial question, which you have demonstrated by entirely failing to answer.

Atmoplanar conditions are consistent enough to serve as an explanation
No, they aren't. Because being consistent still doesn't help explain what is actually observed.

Nobody said anything about "rough."
So you are nobody?
After all, YOU said it, by appealing to surface imperfections, i.e. a rough surface.

*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +7/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Molokini
« Reply #16 on: April 14, 2025, 01:05:24 PM »
Could we all refrain from name-calling? It really serves no purpose and does not promote anybody's argument.

*

BagetGunsInc

  • 54
  • +10/-4
Re: Molokini
« Reply #17 on: April 14, 2025, 01:29:17 PM »
Sounds like someone's a Twink about name calling

*

magellanclavichord

  • 1034
  • +7/-10
  • Cheerful Globularist
Re: Molokini
« Reply #18 on: April 14, 2025, 03:44:48 PM »
Sounds like someone's a Twink about name calling

Name-calling is childish. It serves no purpose.

When someone calls me names I know it means they have no rational rebuttal against my arguments.

?

WISHTOLAUGH

  • 708
  • +3/-4
Re: Molokini
« Reply #19 on: April 14, 2025, 06:50:23 PM »
I didn't bring in the word, "rough." You did, implying large waves or choppy seas would be required to obscure the lower view, when it would not. Waves do not need to be "rough."

Things do not sink, unless they are sinking.

Atmoplanar conditions are generally consistent in that they are less murky as altitudes rise.

*

JackBlack

  • 24512
  • +21/-44
Re: Molokini
« Reply #20 on: April 15, 2025, 12:26:22 AM »
I didn't bring in the word, "rough." You did, implying large waves or choppy seas would be required to obscure the lower view, when it would not. Waves do not need to be "rough."
You would need a wave large enough to reach a point between the observer and the object being observed.
If the surface imperfections are too low, then they can't block the view.

Things do not sink, unless they are sinking.
But they appear to sink when going around a curve.
Thanks for confirming that these views are impossible on a flat Earth.

Atmoplanar conditions are generally consistent in that they are less murky as altitudes rise.
Again, if this was going to be the cause, the objects would't sink, it would just fade to a blur.

Your excuses don't work.