Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

1.0K

(post is archived)

[–] • 10 pts

Take a flashlight, wait until dark, turn it on. Looking at the light in your hands it seems to have a definite size. now place that light where you can see it and walk away, the further you move away from the light the larger it gets due to light divergence right? No, dumbass! It looks smaller. Get far enough away and it seems to only be a point of indefinite size.

Five seconds of thought was too hard for you? Shameful.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Yeah well, that’s just like your opinion man.

If what you said were true, then all the light coming to the earth but not hitting our eyes would diffuse out through the atmosphere. We don’t get any of that.

Firmament makes much more logical sense. Space is fake and gay. Anyone who believes it’s an empty void is part of the illuminutty Fag Mason Agenda.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

We lies beyond the firmament? No space? What would no space look like?

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

It'd probably look like a hyperbolic toroidal manifold in an 11 dimension lattice supersymmetrical meta-structure, whatever that looks like.

[–] • -1 pt

Why do you believe in light divergence when somebody told you about that?

So you believe in one thing somebody told you buy not another thing you can directly observe with your own eyes?

Jesus you're fucking retarded dude. Your existence is empirical justification for eugenics.

But you aren't serious. Your goal is to make this board look ridiculous by saying obviously retarded shit. You deserve to die immediately.

[–] • 2 pts

Light divergence is pretty easy to demonstrate and anyone can replicate it. Just point a flashlight at the wall. Its bigger the further away you get from the wall. If stars or galaxies are supposedly "light years" away, then the light spread from them should be too big for us to see.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

Next thing you're going to tell me that any point on an object spreads like this and a camera magically can figure this all out from a distance. /s

It's actually quite fascinating how a lens can take light directed at it and separate it by the extremely small differences in angles the photons are coming in.

[–] [deleted] • 9 pts

Because we don't see all the light that has spread out...its spread away from our pupils and never touches them. We only see the light that is directed straight at our pupils and it is a tiny fraction of all of the light. Idk, I ain't a scientist

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

STARS AREN'T REAL!

STARS AREN'T REAL!

STARS AREN'T REAL!

STARS AREN'T REAL!

[–] • 1 pt

Because every time the distance doubles, the signal strength decreases by the square root. I.e. if the signal strength was 100 watts @ one light year, it's 10 watts at two light years. Ergo the signal (read: light) is very faint to begin with.

In addition, your eyes are very small. They're not a thousand mile wide antenna that can perceive stars' omnidirectional signal as bathing that entire side of the planet in light. They only perceive the tiny amount that fits through your retina. E.g. look at a running light on a plane. It's omnidirectional but looks like a point - and that's at 5-6 miles up, not light years away.

[–] • 1 pt

Because it makes more logical sense than anything else presented thus far.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Not really. A firmament over a prison planet menagerie that exists for the sadistic amusement and study by the menagerie’s owner makes much more logical sense.

[–] • 2 pts

it is a good post that you cannot tell is sarcasm.

[–] • 0 pt

Light is nothing but a disturbance in the aether.

[–] • 1 pt

Thanks. That explains nothing and completely ignored the consequences of light divergence over many light years distance.

I award you no points and may god have mercy on your soul.

[–] [deleted] • 2 pts

You forgot to say "now everyone is dumber for having read your post" :)

[–] • 1 pt

Who says they are light years away in distance?

[–] • 0 pt

There's no light divergence in space MAN.. you need atmosphere for that MAN..

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

because the eye has a spherical lens, the spherical lens is a direction finder. the light from the star spreads in all directions, because its "radiation" from Latin Radius. you can imagine the spherical lens as a half (circle) made of almost infinitely many straight line segments. the light only reaches the retina when it passes straight through a "flat" side of the lens, only when it hits it in a perfect 90° angle, because of the lenses index of refraction, the stronger the °angle of the light that hits on of the flat sides, the more it will get bent away from it, a perfectly perpendicular "ray" will not bend away at all, no matter how strong the refraction. for this reason only those perpendicular "rays" will be detected, everything else will be filtered out.

[–] • 1 pt (edited )

Eyes have blood vessels in them. Perpendicular rays would hit tiny blood vessels. The blood vessels on the flat sides of the lens would behave like billions of tiny double slit experiments constanly observing quantum wave form collapse. Therefore, stars and their subsequent light "rays" are nothing more than probablistic wave functions. Since there are trillions upon trillions of the probablistic wave functions, the Law of Big Numbers shows some of those wave functions are the least probable stars possible. Since the least probable star is a god, some of those stars are gods. Therefore gods are real. QED.

[–] • 0 pt

behind the lens there are tiny little pixels, each pixel corresponds to another "flat" side of the lens, if your lens is not spherical, then your vision will be blurry, because the wrong rays are hitting the pixels.

double slit experiments are humbug. its why i put "rays" into quotes. rays also from latin Radius- "rays/spokes that emanate from a common center, developing uniformly on all sides". rays arent realy real but important mathematically and geometrically.

[–] • 1 pt

I don't know man. The double slit experiment seems pretty legit.

[–] • 0 pt (edited )

i forgot pointing out, that because of the "rays" that are like spokes, all the light that hits the lens from a different direction converges to a different focal point inside of the eye (or not), so its not just the dead-on straight rays that get used. and the complete lens isnt really just a sphere. this is probably why the picture is blurry when something is out of focus, because the focal point is not right on the pixel. to get it into focus you have to deform the lens or move the pixels to the correct focal points, there should be muscles in the eye that can do that.

if the light source is not in focus, then the pixels would receive rays from multiple wrong angles.

[–] • 0 pt

because they do. because its what they are.

[–] [deleted] • 0 pt
[–] • 0 pt

Are you actually not able to imagine lines coming from a point to know how?