Yeah, based on the physics of parallax & trigonometry
So we are taught. But there are many unvalidated assumptions baked into such calculations. Astronomy is rife with them.
so you think it's all fake
No, i have concluded it is wrong; slightly different.
If you want to argue against the physics of light, you go right ahead.
The physics of light doesn’t prove nor measure a distance to a star.
since you are claiming things without any empirical evidence
Like what? If you are looking for empirical evidence, just ask!
which is the fundamental basis of science
Agreed.
I don't argue with people who think rationally and can provide facts to support their claims
Personally, i don’t think you should argue at all. It’s for fools. But if you had to - people who think rationally and can provide evidence for their claims would be more interesting than others, surely.
I argue with low-IQ morons who think they are smarter than those that matriculate. Lol.
That is very sad. Arguing with idiots makes you even stupider (and belligerent) than they are :( I urge you to reconsider. Capable students prefer earnest discussion and research, and the intelligent have no need to argue with fools to feel better about themselves.
Yeah, based on the physics of parallax & trigonometry
So we are taught. But there are many unvalidated assumptions baked into such calculations. Astronomy is rife with them.
so you think it's all fake
No, i have concluded it is wrong; slightly different.
If you want to argue against the physics of light, you go right ahead.
The physics of light doesn’t prove nor measure a distance to a star.
since you are claiming things without any empirical evidence
Like what? If you are looking for empirical evidence, just ask!
which is the fundamental basis of science
Agreed.
I don't argue with people who think rationally and can provide facts to support their claims
Personally, i don’t think you should argue at all. It’s for fools. But if you had to - people who thought rationally and can provide evidence for their claims would be more interesting than others, surely.
I argue with low-IQ morons who think they are smarter than those that matriculate. Lol.
That is very sad. Arguing with idiots makes you even stupider (and belligerent) than they are :( I urge you to reconsider. Capable students prefer earnest discussion and research, and the intelligent have no need to argue with fools to feel better about themselves.
Yeah, based on the physics of parallax & trigonometry
So we are taught. But there are many unvalidated assumptions baked into such calculations. Astronomy is rife with them.
so you think it's all fake
No, i have concluded it is wrong; slightly different.
If you want to argue against the physics of light, you go right ahead.
The physics of light doesn’t prove nor measure a distance to a star.
since you are claiming things without any empirical evidence
Like what? If you are looking for empirical evidence, just ask!
which is the fundamental basis of science
Agreed.
I don't argue with people who think rationally and can provide facts to support their claims
Personally, i don’t think you should argue at all. It’s for fools. But if you had to - people who thought rationally and can provide evidence for their claims would be more interesting than others, surely.
I argue with low-IQ morons who think they are smarter than those that matriculate. Lol.
That is very sad. Arguing with idiots makes you even stupider (and more belligerent) than they are :( I urge you to reconsider. Capable students prefer earnest discussion and research, and the intelligent have no need to argue with fools to feel better about themselves.