Proof that the speed of light is a universal maximum, is impossible

No star measurement has ever been verified, thus saying that a formula that can not be tested is accurate, is just silly.

But that said, you are free to believe

we can use close in stars to prove how these techniques actually work rather well. Theres about a 0.10% error , AND FOR CLOSE IN STARS LIKE THE "CENTAURI SISTERS" we can show how rallax is the best technique all by itself. We use red shift and pulse v peak luminosity or stars at farther distances.

The methods work, its just the metric of accuracy that gets updated as new methods of refining accuracy are discovered (mostly by more focused of telescopes in space)

You've changed your position somewhat. I guess you've read a bit about the three methods weve recently discussed. That's called learning. Youre still mostly clueless just at a bit higher level.

I have changed nothing, and there is no method that can be used to measure the distance to a star, by using it's unknown luminosity at the source..... Nor is there any way to prove that nothing can travel faster than light, without having knowledge of all things.

Actually, you only need 2 points to triangulate and a known distance between the points It seems you didn't bother to read the article. Here's a picture that makes it clear you only need 2 points and the distance between the 2 points.



Now it seems you don't understand that the sun is the center of our solar system. The earth goes around it. Your argument that the earth is only one point is as silly as arguing that an engineer can't take two measurements to triangulate because he is the same person. The earth is at a different location each of 365 days. Every 6 months it is at it's farthest distance from where it was 6 months previous.

Do you understand these simple concepts? Which ones do you disagree with?

Seems logical huh. Except that in reality, the distance between the Earth and Sun, when extrapolated to a distant star in a distant galaxy, actually is so minute, that the triangle actually resembles a straight line, if you look at the entire picture. Furthermore, whatever distance that you come up with, from this, is not checkable by any means..........................So it is theory, and no more, to disprove the theory, you would need to go to the star.

now you seem to have an argument with trigonometry and polar coordinates. Seems that your "doubts" go beyond good skepticism and border on denial based upon religious fervor.

Whats the value of pi in your world?

Apart from relatively nearby galaxies, beyond the Milky Way distances to remote objects are nearly always inferred by measuring the cosmological redshift of their light. By their nature, very distant objects tend to be very faint, and these distance determinations are difficult and subject to errors. An important distinction is whether the distance is determined via spectroscopy or using a photometric redshift technique. The former is generally both more precise and also more reliable, in the sense that photometric redshifts are more prone to being wrong due to confusion with by lower redshift sources that have unusual spectra. For that reason, a spectroscopic redshift is conventionally regarded as being necessary for an object's distance to be considered definitely known, whereas photometrically determined redshifts identify "candidate" very distant sources. Here, this distinction is indicated by a "p" subscript for photometric redshifts.

1 Gly = 1 billion light-years.

And none of these error fought measurements, can even be checked in any way........................

Im glad that you've taken som tim to read a bit more. Youre still missing the "Why" we even measure star distances (everyone understands errors of magnitude, yet we do it all the time in physics, geodesy and in extremely small values also).
Do you know how we "correct" apparent red shift?? PS, DOES ANYONE EVEN DO pRedshift anymore? Its sorta like carburetors v fuel injection. The replacement of the carburetor in the 1990's has moved to almost all IC and Diesel engines (even lawn mowers)

Still, what do you have to say about parallax measurement and Leavitts technique?

Copy and paste involves no reading

so you didn't even read what you "pasted"??

whew, hard to reason with that.

I posted it for you to read, which you did like good little boy. It was on topic and made my point.

actually, it made mine because you now know that they DO measure distances to stars by using red shift (you will find the same re corrections for Leavitts method)

I asked you a question if you even know whether photometric red shifts are even done any more? You seem to be so quick with opinions about **** you know little about.

You've argued parados re: parallax technique and have disputed that its real. I hope you know that your dummy tracks follow you and rob your subsequent subsequent posts of any credibility with which you may be trying to bluff us.

How is the distance to the edge of the universe measured, and more important, what means are used to check this measurement.

Answer, there is no check, so the measurement is a theory and nothing more.

Who are they?

Another one where our Bullshit detectors go off.

"

Well then what measurement to a star other than our sun has been verified?

most all of them

How was the verification achieved. Bye the way, most all of the stars in the universe, have not even been viewed.

Next

Those that have been distance determined have mostly been verified.
Look up verify again or are you still stoned?

every Cepheid and "red lead stars" of each galaxy as well as stars in constellations have all been verified.