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?
So the stars are candles now? How do you know they work like candles?
Are you really this daft or are you just trolling me? Re-read my comment on Cepheid stars and why they are called 'standard candles'. Better yet, go read up on astronomy and learn something useful for a change.
(post is archived)