The easiest way to do this for an amateur astronomer it to use the measurement and some trigonometry. It's a fairly easy setup that doesn't require much in terms of equipment, but it is time consuming since it takes 6 months to perform a measurement. The reason it takes 6 months is due to it needing the Earth to complete half of its orbit around the Sun which gives us the greatest observable distance the Earth can be at from the initial and final measurement points. It works very well for nearby stars (within a few light years), but it can augment the measurement accuracy of other more complex methods.
One such more complex method is to use the apparent magnitude (brightness as observed) of a special class of star called a 'Cepheid' or commonly referred to as a 'standard candle'. This class of star is a know brightness/apparent magnitude that is controlled by the formation and life cycle of the star. By taking measurements of the brightness shift as the Earth moves in orbit relative to the standard candle star, we can accurately calculate its distance. When combined with the parallax angle method, the distance to a star or other object can be determined with high accuracy. It's not rocket science. It's simple Astronomy 101. Humans are smart. Please give us some credit for what we can do even when we are stuck here on Earth.
Unfortunately I don't think either of these things prove the distance of stars.
The parallax angle is flawed, it's assuming the sun is stationary. It's also assuming the stars aren't moving. (Which both clearly are from what I see.)
It also uses 'triangulation' (seems more like biangulation to me) for something light years away. The size of the earth is too small in relation to the supposed distance of stars to have any accuracy whatsoever. Especially with all the movement. (Spin/orbit of earth, or circular path of sun/moon/stars over earth.)
You also cannot get distance from brightness. You are assuming the brightness shift is from distance. I turn on my high beams...doesn't mean my car is any closer.
Well no point in me discussing this with you further since you just told me FEs don't know everything but now you are telling me you know everything after all. You can believe whatever you want, but it doesn't make it true. Your last paragraph says it all: you don't understand the Inverse Square Law. Brighter does not mean closer in your example because you artificially increased the brightness. Standard candles don't do that so they are usable in this method. I can explain it to you, but I can't understand it for you.
>but now you are telling me you know everything after all
Where did I say that?
>Standard candles
So the stars are candles now? How do you know they work like candles?
(post is archived)