Not true. Cepheid variables and type 1A supernovas provide good yard sticks throughout the Milky Way (100,000 light years) and out to nearby galaxies eg M31/Andromeda.Astronomers admit that parallax is not accurate beyond 300
light-years. Empirically speaking no one is required to commit himself to a universe greater in size than 600 light-years in diameter. Any claims to
something larger are simply not conclusive, since it with all the anomalies
associated with measuring distance by a star’s redshift, ther is no indisputable yardstick to measure the universe.
Not true. Cepheid variables and type 1A supernovas provide good yard sticks throughout the Milky Way (100,000 light years) and out to nearby galaxies eg M31/Andromeda.
APOD is a must view every day. Todays picture with a type 1A supernova which appears to question the use of a 1A to determine distance as it is too bright for its alleged distance.
"Scientists have announced tantalizing hints that the universe is actually relatively small, with a hall-of-mirrors illusion tricking us into thinking that space stretches on forever. Weeks and his colleagues, a team of astrophysicists in France, say the WMAP results suggest that the universe is not only small, but that space wraps back on itself in a bizarre way (Nature, vol. 425, p. 593). Effectively, the universe would be like a hall of mirrors, with the wraparound effect producing multiple images of everything
inside.” Spergel adds: “If we could prove that the universe was finite and small, that would be Earth-shattering. It would really change our view of the universe.” (New Scientist Oct 11, 2003)
Can I ask where you cut and pasted this from?"Other methods of determining parallax include: Photometric parallaxes, which are found by estimating a star’s absolute magnitude (M) based on a spectral classification, and comparing that with its apparent magnitude (m). Statistical parallaxes could perhaps extend to 500 parsecs, but this only applies to groups of stars, not individual stars.
Overall, of the half dozen or so methods employed today to measure astral distances, none of them are indisputable (including distances measured by redshift, Cepheid variables, luminosity, color of stars, etc.). There is only one purely empirical method, parallax (and its attendant modifications such as Spectroscopic, Moving Cluster Method, and Statistical Method), but it is quite limited in its applicability, since it can accurately measure only a thousand or so stars. In effect, modern science is left without an irrefutable means to measure cosmological distances, and thus all the literature espousing that stars, galaxies or quasars are billions of light years away from Earth is an unproven scientific assertion.
Using Cepheid variables, for example, is certainly a question-begging venture, since Cepheids are too far away to be measured by parallax and, thus, depends on an unproven statistical method to measure distance.
Other methods such as Secular Parallax, Expansion Parallax, Kinematic Distance, Light Echo Distance, Baade-Wesselink Method, Expanding Photosphere Method, Main Sequence Fitting, RR Lyrae Distance and about a dozen or so other methods have been proposed for measuring star distances, each with their own problems and uncertainties".
A 16 year old puff piece in the New Scientist does not constitute current thinking in the Astrophysics/Astronomy/Cosmology community.
A film that the scientists were interviewed for under false pretences and have said they do not agree with is not a great piece of evidence either.
Really? You do know how this piece of sh*t was put together and who funded it?