<p>Using type Ia supernova light curves.</p>

<p>The RR Lyrae period-luminosity relation.</p>

<p>Moving cluster statistical parallax.</p>

<p>Surface brightness fluctuations.</p>

<p>Redshift-distance relation.</p>

<p>Using merging gravitational wave sources as standard sirens.</p>

<p>These and more can be pursued following this link. <a href="https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder" rel="noreferrer">https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder</a></p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-06T07:50:26.860Z
2018-04-06T07:50:26.860Z
ProfRob
<p>At least <a href="https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.07872" rel="nofollow noreferrer">44</a> extragalactic distance measurement methods are known, apart from the parallax method which is only useful for objects in our own galaxy. Further reading about these can be done here: <a href="https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/distintro.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><strong>1</strong></a>, <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/abafba" rel="nofollow noreferrer">2</a>, <a href="https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/37" rel="nofollow noreferrer">3</a></p>
<h2>Standard Candles</h2>
<ul>
<li>AGN time lag</li>
<li>BL Lac Object Luminosity</li>
<li>Brightest Stars</li>
<li>Carbon Stars</li>
<li>Cepheids</li>
<li>Color-Magnitude Diagrams</li>
<li>Gamma-Ray Burst</li>
<li>Globular Cluster Luminosity Function</li>
<li>Globular Cluster Surface Brightness Fluctuations</li>
<li>Horizontal Branch</li>
<li>Miras</li>
<li>Novae</li>
<li>Planetary Nebula Luminosity Function</li>
<li>RR Lyrae Stars</li>
<li>Red Clump</li>
<li>Red Supergiant Variables</li>
<li>SNIa SDSS</li>
<li>SX Phoenicis Stars</li>
<li>Statistical</li>
<li>Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect</li>
<li>Surface Brightness Fluctuations</li>
<li>Tip of the Red Giant Branch</li>
<li>Type II Cepheids</li>
<li>Type Ia Supernovae</li>
</ul>
<h2>Standard Rulers</h2>
<ul>
<li>Dwarf Galaxy Diameter</li>
<li>Eclipsing Binary</li>
<li>Globular Cluster Radii</li>
<li>Gravitational Lenses</li>
<li>HII Region Diameters</li>
<li>Masers</li>
<li>Ring Diameter</li>
<li>Type II Supernovae Optical</li>
</ul>
<h2>Secondary Methods</h2>
<ul>
<li>D-Sigma</li>
<li>Diameter</li>
<li>Faber-Jackson</li>
<li>Fundamental Plane</li>
<li>GeV TeV ratio</li>
<li>Globular Cluster Fundamental Plane</li>
<li>Gravitational Wave</li>
<li>Infra-Red Astronomical Satellite</li>
<li>Mass Model</li>
<li>Tertiary</li>
<li>Tully Estimate</li>
<li>Tully-Fisher</li>
</ul>
<p><em>Disclosure: The first referenced paper is authored by me.</em></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T06:47:02.007Z
Some of the bullet points make no sense in isolation. e.g., gravitational wave, Tully estimate, tertiary, GeV TeV ratio. I guess they can read your paper (you should disclose you are the author)?
ProfRob
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T07:25:43.957Z
@ProfRob Thank you for your guidance  I do agree and understand. However, I am finding it difficult to add even minor details for all the methods without making the answer too long. So, based on your guidance, I have added papers for further reading for those interested.
Ritesh Singh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T07:36:26.580Z
@ProfRob Also added the disclosure as per your guidance.
Ritesh Singh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T07:41:46.600Z
Looking at your paper, I don't really see the methods explained either, but also just listed - though you surely know what they mean. It would be nice to have some more direct reference at least for the, say, more obscure one like "tertiary" which don't immediately lend themselves to an easy search either.
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T07:48:38.190Z
Looking at your 3rd reference I find the explanation "A catch-all term for various distance indicators employed by de Vaucouleurs et al. in the 1970s and 1980s, including galaxy luminosity index and rotational velocity (e.g., McCall 1989). Applied to galaxy IC 0342, to obtain a distance modulus of (m-M) = 26.32, for a linear distance of 1.84 Mpc, with a statistical error of 0.15 mag or 0.13 Mpc (7%)." That's not much of an explanation either - and makes it sound... not overly convincing.
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T07:52:10.687Z
@planetmaker Thank you for your edit, as well as for your guidance  Please forgive me, I had referenced my paper only as a source for the number 44. In other words, my only intention was to support the idea that there are a large number of methods, and not only 6 as said by OP. When ProfRob pointed out (just like you also did) that the method names seem to be uninformative, I added 2 more papers which have more information about the method names. I had taken the names from these papers.
Ritesh Singh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T07:55:53.693Z
That's absolutely fine, I've no problem with that. I just wished this answer would become an excellent one and allow me to actually learn more than just a list of names by pointing me to the right direction for the listed methods. You surely know where all these methods are described reasonably :) while it will take me at least a day to find reasonable references for each.
planetmaker
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T08:28:58.437Z
@planetmaker You are very kind, both in your words and actions  Based on your guidance, I have added a link with complete details about each of the methods. It is the link labelled **1**.
Ritesh Singh
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-04-12T03:12:09.757Z
2023-04-12T08:44:02.647Z
2023-04-12T08:44:02.647Z
Ritesh Singh
<p>What are six different methods to measure distances in Astronomy in regards of their respective range in terms of astronomical objects?</p>

<p>So far I can name 4: Parallax method, radar ranging, main-sequence fitting, cepheid variables.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-05T23:18:25.413Z
There is also type 1a supernovae, red shift (for distant objects), and possibly by studying the orbits of binary systems (but I'm not sure about that one).
Mick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-05T23:26:10.953Z
Note that the parallax method can be applied to globular clusters as well as individual stars, and can increase the range/accuracy by about 3 times (iirc).
Mick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-05T23:31:40.670Z
@Mick Thanks for sharing the other methods with me. This is interesting about the parallax method.
bookfiend
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-05T23:32:28.197Z
You will need to check what I have told you. I am just an armchair astronomer.
Mick
CC BY-SA 3.0
2018-04-06T06:50:59.517Z
The wikipedia page on the cosmic distance ladder could also help...
AtmosphericPrisonEscape
<star><galaxy>
What are six different methods to measure distances in Astronomy?
bookfiend
# What are six different methods to measure distances in Astronomy?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2018-04-05)

What are six different methods to measure distances in Astronomy in regards of their respective range in terms of astronomical objects?

So far I can name 4: Parallax method, radar ranging, main-sequence fitting, cepheid variables.

**Tags:** star, galaxy
> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: There is also type 1a supernovae, red shift (for distant objects), and possibly by studying the orbits of binary systems (but I'm not sure about that one).  
> **username_1**: Note that the parallax method can be applied to globular clusters as well as individual stars, and can increase the range/accuracy by about 3 times (iirc).  
> **username_0**: @Mick Thanks for sharing the other methods with me. This is interesting about the parallax method.  
> **username_1**: You will need to check what I have told you. I am just an armchair astronomer.  
> **username_2**: The wikipedia page on the cosmic distance ladder could also help...  

---

## 2 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2018-04-06. Score: 6

Using type Ia supernova light curves.

The RR Lyrae period-luminosity relation.

Moving cluster statistical parallax.

Surface brightness fluctuations.

Redshift-distance relation.

Using merging gravitational wave sources as standard sirens.

These and more can be pursued following this link. <https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_distance_ladder>


---

### Answer by username_4 on 2023-04-12. Score: 4

At least [44](https://arxiv.org/abs/2111.07872) extragalactic distance measurement methods are known, apart from the parallax method which is only useful for objects in our own galaxy. Further reading about these can be done here: [**1**](https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/Library/Distances/distintro.html), [2](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/abafba), [3](https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-3881/153/1/37)

## Standard Candles

* AGN time lag
* BL Lac Object Luminosity
* Brightest Stars
* Carbon Stars
* Cepheids
* Color-Magnitude Diagrams
* Gamma-Ray Burst
* Globular Cluster Luminosity Function
* Globular Cluster Surface Brightness Fluctuations
* Horizontal Branch
* Miras
* Novae
* Planetary Nebula Luminosity Function
* RR Lyrae Stars
* Red Clump
* Red Supergiant Variables
* SNIa SDSS
* SX Phoenicis Stars
* Statistical
* Sunyaev-Zeldovich Effect
* Surface Brightness Fluctuations
* Tip of the Red Giant Branch
* Type II Cepheids
* Type Ia Supernovae

## Standard Rulers

* Dwarf Galaxy Diameter
* Eclipsing Binary
* Globular Cluster Radii
* Gravitational Lenses
* HII Region Diameters
* Masers
* Ring Diameter
* Type II Supernovae Optical

## Secondary Methods

* D-Sigma
* Diameter
* Faber-Jackson
* Fundamental Plane
* GeV TeV ratio
* Globular Cluster Fundamental Plane
* Gravitational Wave
* Infra-Red Astronomical Satellite
* Mass Model
* Tertiary
* Tully Estimate
* Tully-Fisher

*Disclosure: The first referenced paper is authored by me.*

> **Comments:**
> **username_3**: Some of the bullet points make no sense in isolation. e.g., gravitational wave, Tully estimate, tertiary, GeV TeV ratio. I guess they can read your paper (you should disclose you are the author)?  
> **username_4**: @ProfRob Thank you for your guidance  I do agree and understand. However, I am finding it difficult to add even minor details for all the methods without making the answer too long. So, based on your guidance, I have added papers for further reading for those interested.  
> **username_4**: @ProfRob Also added the disclosure as per your guidance.  
> **username_5**: Looking at your paper, I don't really see the methods explained either, but also just listed - though you surely know what they mean. It would be nice to have some more direct reference at least for the, say, more obscure one like "tertiary" which don't immediately lend themselves to an easy search either.  
> **username_5**: Looking at your 3rd reference I find the explanation "A catch-all term for various distance indicators employed by de Vaucouleurs et al. in the 1970s and 1980s, including galaxy luminosity index and rotational velocity (e.g., McCall 1989). Applied to galaxy IC 0342, to obtain a distance modulus of (m-M) = 26.32, for a linear distance of 1.84 Mpc, with a statistical error of 0.15 mag or 0.13 Mpc (7%)." That's not much of an explanation either - and makes it sound... not overly convincing.  
> **username_4**: @planetmaker Thank you for your edit, as well as for your guidance  Please forgive me, I had referenced my paper only as a source for the number 44. In other words, my only intention was to support the idea that there are a large number of methods, and not only 6 as said by OP. When ProfRob pointed out (just like you also did) that the method names seem to be uninformative, I added 2 more papers which have more information about the method names. I had taken the names from these papers.  
> **username_5**: That's absolutely fine, I've no problem with that. I just wished this answer would become an excellent one and allow me to actually learn more than just a list of names by pointing me to the right direction for the listed methods. You surely know where all these methods are described reasonably :) while it will take me at least a day to find reasonable references for each.  
> **username_4**: @planetmaker You are very kind, both in your words and actions  Based on your guidance, I have added a link with complete details about each of the methods. It is the link labelled **1**.  

---

