I fully accept what is put in bold.
So again you avoid an extremely simple question.
This is about what you would expect for a RE, to see if your claim about it is valid or pure nonsense.
Why try switching back to a FE?
Why avoid the question yet again?
Is it because you know your argument is wrong and that this line of reasoning will clearly show why so you avoid it at all costs?
So, try sticking to what is expected for a RE for this one.
One more, you have accepted that when you look straight down, you see ground (and presumably that if you were over water you would accept you see that); and you have accepted (in fact you claimed this) that if you look straight out level, then directly at the centre of your FOV you would see sky.
The logical consequence of this is that if you start looking straight down on top of this round Earth, and raise your head, as you do so you will reach a point where you can see both ground/sea and sky, where there would be an imaginary line dividing your vision, below which you see land/sea and above which you see sky.
Do you accept this fact?
I do know what it is not....and it is not, a globe.
How?
You are yet to provide a single thing that shows that and repeatedly avoid things which show the opposite or show your arguments to be horrible flawed?
It seems more like you falsely believe it is flat and will do whatever you can to pretend that false belief is justified.
You have never used basic logic to disprove a globe. You have avoided basic logic at all costs.
Even now you avoid simple logic and extremely basic questions which show your argument to be pure nonsense.
Firstly it was a very long time ago, so I'm not likely to remember all the details.
My recollection is that other students at the observatory took photographs (actual film in those days) over a period of time. By comparing photos you spot the stars which vary in brightness. Determine the period (variation of brightness over time) and that allows you to pick out the cepheids, because they follow a very distinctive pattern. Cepheids of a given period should have a certain magnitude (brightness) at a standard distance, so the further away they are the dimmer they appear to be and there is a relationship between apparent brightness and distance. Estimating the apparent brightness is then just a case of comparing the appearance of a candidate cepheid with another star of an agreed magnitude. For example, Polaris has an apparent magnitude of 1.98 (to be fair, it varies, so it's not a good example to use for this exercise), so if you see a cepheid that looks the same in a photo as Polaris, then that cepheid also has an apparent magnitude of 1.98.
The distance to the nearest cepheids has been determined by parallax, so the idea is that if you know the distance to one, and you know the relationship between brightness and distance, then you can work out the distance to any cepheid.
They have been referred to as standard candles. The idea is if you had a load of identical candles in a field at night, the dimmest are the furthest away and you can in principle work out how far away by how bright they appear.
Edwin Hubble used cepheids to determine the distance to M31 and basically confirm the previously unproven idea that galaxies outside our own existed.
As for the accepted value, I mean the value generally accepted by the scientific community as the correct distance to the galaxy we were looking at (whichever that was - I can't remember).
In large bold.
Can you explain how they manage to find the distance to just one, to enable them to go from that?
Just the basics will suffice.
Did you miss the part right before it?
As for more, you have already been told how the distance to the sun is determined and thus the size of Earth's orbit, and thus how far Earth would have travelled in 6 months.