You can validate those assumptions with a pencil, paper, ruler, compass, and protractor

No, you can’t. The assumption of the earths orbit (and its correct diameter) around the sun yearly is baked into such calculations - for one.

Or you can look up the proofs

Proofs do not exist outside of mathematics in an objective way. Proof is subjective.

I’m telling you that i have seen the “proofs” and they rely on unvalidated assumption.

If the Sun is small and local, you shouldn't need to be all that far apart to have a detectable angular difference.

I think this is a reasonable assumption. Many have completed this procedure and calculated the sun to be a few thousand miles away. Of course, for such calculations to be correct also requires the unvalidated (and easily refuted) assumption that the matter between the sun and observers does not alter its apparent path/position in any way. Because of air, for one, the sun often appears to be somewhere different than it actually is. Optics are tricky..

The same technique can be used to measure the distance to anything, whether it's a mountain in the distance, or a tree in your neighbor's back yard.

True, but the further you are from such observed points, the less accurate and dependable the procedure - for the same reasons above, and others.

You can validate those assumptions with a pencil, paper, ruler, compass, and protractor

No, you can’t. The assumption of the earths orbit (and its correct diameter) around the sun yearly is baked into such calculations - for one.

Or you can look up the proofs

Proofs do not exist outside of mathematics in an objective way. Proof is subjective.

I’m telling you that i have seen the “proofs” and they rely on unvalidated assumption.

If the Sun is small and local, you shouldn't need to be all that far apart to have a detectable angular difference.

I think this is a reasonable assumption. Many have completed this procedure and calculated the sun to be a few thousand miles away. Of course, for such calculations to be correct also requires the unvalidated (and easily refuted) assumption that the matter between the sun and observers does not alter its apparent path in any way. Because of air, for one, the sun often appears to be somewhere different than it actually is. Optics are tricky..

The same technique can be used to measure the distance to anything, whether it's a mountain in the distance, or a tree in your neighbor's back yard.

True, but the further you are from such observed points, the less accurate and dependable the procedure - for the same reasons above, and others.

You can validate those assumptions with a pencil, paper, ruler, compass, and protractor

No, you can’t. The assumption of the earths orbit (and its correct diameter) around the sun yearly is baked into such calculations - for one.

Or you can look up the proofs

Proofs do not exist outside of mathematics in an objective way. Proof is subjective.

I’m telling you that i have seen the “proofs” and they rely on unvalidated assumption.

If the Sun is small and local, you shouldn't need to be all that far apart to have a detectable angular difference.

I think this is a reasonable assumption. Many have completed this procedure and calculated the sun to be a few thousand miles away. Of course, for such calculations to be correct also requires the unvalidated (and easily refuted) assumption that the matter between the sun and observers does not alter its path in any way. Because of air, for one, the sun often appears to be somewhere different than it actually is. Optics are tricky..

The same technique can be used to measure the distance to anything, whether it's a mountain in the distance, or a tree in your neighbor's back yard.

True, but the further you are from such observed points, the less accurate and dependable the procedure - for the same reasons above, and others.

You can validate those assumptions with a pencil, paper, ruler, compass, and protractor

No, you can’t. The assumption of the earths orbit (and its correct diameter) around the sun yearly is baked into such calculations - for one.

Or you can look up the proofs

Proofs do not exist outside of mathematics in an objective way. Proof is subjective.

I’m telling you that i have seen the “proofs” and they rely on unvalidated assumption.

If the Sun is small and local, you shouldn't need to be all that far apart to have a detectable angular difference.

I think this is a reasonable assumption. Many have completed this procedure and calculted the sun to be a few thousand miles away. Of course, for such calculations to be correct also requires the unvalidated (and easily refuted) assumption that the matter between the sun and observers does not alter its path in any way. Because of air, for one, the sun often appears to be somewhere different than it actually is. Optics are tricky..

The same technique can be used to measure the distance to anything, whether it's a mountain in the distance, or a tree in your neighbor's back yard.

True, but the further you are from such observed points, the less accurate and dependable the procedure - for the same reasons above, and others.