Ok so your only proof is from Hubble?
Do you have any proof (from here on Earth) that gives the distance of the stars from the Earth?
The Keck I and II observatories, the Very Large Telescope, The Hale Telescopes, the Lowell Discovery Telescope (actually here's a for you) all can demonstrate this too. Many of these optical telescopes use adaptive optics to counteract the atmospheric distortion that bends the parallel rays of light from the stars. That wouldn't be needed if the light wasn't parallel as it is. And since you'll just counter me with the 'CGI' argument, the early Hale Telescopes (there were several) were all optical direct observation telescopes. Actual people had to look through the objective lens to see distant objects. They were built and used prior to the development of computers so there was no way to use CGI to 'fake' things. In 1949, Edwin Hubble used the later built 200-inch Hale Telescope to observe , also known as Hubble's Variable Nebula, which is approximately 2500 light years away. That's a hell of a long way from Earth, wouldn't you say? Did CGI exist in 1949?
So now it's your turn. How does perspective work on an object like NGC 2261 that is 2500 light years away? It's 8 degrees, 45 minutes above the equatorial plane and not obscured by anything at all on clear night. Show me how big the 'dome' is to make that work with your 'perspective' answer. And BTW, how do you know the 'dome' really exists? Got any pictures of it that aren't just drawings or CGI? Got any accurate distance measurements for it? For all we know, the 'dome' is just CGI since that's all I've ever seen of it.
The thing with us flat earthers is, we don't know everything. I don't trust these people who consistently lie for money/control.
What experiment can I do myself, here on Earth, that proves the distances of the stars?
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.
(post is archived)