Measuring Star Distances
On Kent Hovind's web site [1], and in many of his presentations, he claims the only accurate way to measure the distance to stars is using trigonometry. Hovind claims that trigonometry is only accurate up to 100 light years, therefor any claims to distances to stars are not accurate.
The problem with Hovind's stance is two fold. Firstly, it is possible to measure distances greater than 100 light years using available knowledge about astronomy. Secondly, it is now possible, using trigonometry principles, to measure stellar distances as far away as "6 billion light years".
Hovind became publicly aware of this in October 2000 during a debate with Dr Hugh Ross on the John Ankerberg Show. [2]
Ross: Well, because of the new paper published just in the June 1st issue of Astrophysical Journal — I've got the paper here with me — we now have trigonometric parallax distances as far out as 3C279.
Ankerberg: What in the world does that mean?
Ross: That's a quasar that's six billion light years away.
Ankerberg: Well, how do you know it's six billion?
Ross: Okay. How do you know there are variations taking place inside the quasar that guarantee that the variations must be taking place over a certain number of miles diameter? Radio astronomers have developed a new technique where they can take telescopes all over the world and put together the equivalent of a telescope with a 6,000 mile diameter which allows them to measure angles with extreme precision. And it's that technique that has enabled them to establish that this object is a minimum of six billion light years away and therefore the light must have taken six billion years to reach us. This is independent of the expansion measures of the universe.
Ankerberg: Kent?
Hovind: Well, I was born at night, but it wasn't last night. Okay? And I had students all the time that tried this same technique. It's called a “snow job,” I guess, to dazzle with big numbers. I taught trigonometry. I know how it works. [....] So, I just plain do not believe you. I've read your books. I've learned an awful lot. You've got some great stuff in here. But I think what we have here is a classic example of an exaggeration. They cannot tell a star is six billion years old [sic].
Ross: You're wrong on this. Here are two papers that have been published. This one gives a trig parallax distance to NGC4258 – 23-1/2 million [light years].
Hovind: I talk trig. Explain this to me. You can say with trigonometry you can measure six billion light years?
Ross: Yes. You can.
Hovind: I just flat don't believe you. I'm sorry.
Ross: Okay. It's not just the diameter of the Earth's orbit that's going for a....
Hovind: You can't tell where you were six months ago on opposite sides of Earth's orbit.
Ross: Hang on. Hang on.
Hovind: Okay.
Ross: The reason why we're able to do this now and not five years ago is we now have telescopes with extremely high resolution that can measure angles to better than 10/1000ths of an arc second. This is what gets you out so far. We're no longer limited to 500 light years. We can measure all the globular clusters in our ... the Hiparka [sic] Satellite did that — got us out to the globular clusters. But radio astronomy is getting us out to galaxies and quasars.
Hovind: Okay, now I would have to be convinced. Now, I am not saying the stars are not billions of light years away. They probably are. I just think it is hocus-pocus to say we can measure those distances, because we cannot measure those distances.
Ross: Yes, we can. I'm sorry.
Just one month later (Nov. 2000), and the public debunking by Dr Ross is
already forgotten [3]
Most textbooks say they can measure a hundred light years. Okay, I doubt it but I'll give them a hundred. [.....] They're just whistling in the wind if they think they can measure those incredible distances. So the first point I make about the star light question is: How do you measure the distance to those stars? When you tell me a star is ten billion light years away how did you do that? It just can't be done. [emphasis added]
In January 2002, Hovind was still using his publicly debunked "trigonometry" argument in front of another unsuspecting audience. [4]
As of February 2002, you can still find Hovind's unchanged, and erroneous claim on his web site.
Liar, liar, pants on fire!
[2] http://www.johnankerberg.org/Articles/_PDFArchives/science/SC1W0201.pdf [Feb. 2002]
[3] Chuck Missler Show 13 November 2000
[4] http://www.cbbc.net/RS/ 6 Jan 2002 Session #3 @ 52:50