> distance to lights in the sky is not measurable > he doesn't know about all the papers on parallax he could have found very very easily   > the necessity who said it was necessary? but, perhaps you dont know this, there are a lot of stars you cant see with your eye without a little help. > the claim is not consistent with the demands of the inverse square law  its absolutely consistent with it. it just says that there will be less photons per unit of area the more distant they move away from it because they, on average, spread out. why do you think that means the source can't be really far away?
Canada