Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
(Romans 1:21) KJV
Galileo’s bluff is the starting point for THE NARRATIVE of heliocentricity. It’s an induced rationalization of evidence to fit the premise, it’s not proof of heliocentricity.
We have made references to Galileo’s Bluff. Today we’ll lay it out in detail. There are three parts to it.
Galileo’s Bluff
- Assumption of heliocentricity,
- the effect this has on stellar parallax,
- the arbitrary designation of stars as suns and galaxies.
We all have the same evidence. Our choice of paradigm determines what we think it’s evidence of.
– Matty’s Razor
Our frame of reference is, by default, Earth-centered. From our vantage point on the Earth we observe the cosmos orbiting us every day. We observe that the stars have an even distribution in every direction. We also observe that the furthest stars are the same distance from us in every direction. Our frame of reference is Geocentrospheric, there’s nothing you can do about it.
Copernicus may have been one of the first to promote a heliocentric model but he didn’t substantiate it. Galileo was the first to put what looked like “science” behind Copernicus’ assumptions. Unfortunately, Galileo’s “science” is a nested series of assumptions, circular reasoning and reductive induction.
Faith is believing in something that you can’t see, because of evidence.
– Faith, definition
Galileo’s Inductive, Reductive Circular Reasoning
- Assuming the premise of heliocentricity,
- then earth will be on either side of the sun every six months.
- Using induction (not deduction because the premise, the assumption of heliocentricity, is used to supply evidence for the conclusion):
- the angle we measure to a star (parallax) should change during the course of a year,
- if the greatest difference should be when the earth is on either side of the sun,
- then measuring parallax six months apart should prove that the earth is moving (circular reasoning).
- IF the amount of parallax is so small that it can’t be measured, as Galileo found, we begin another circle of reasoning (reductive induction):
- assuming the lack of parallax is because stars are further away than we thought,
- and assuming stars are far enough away to explain the lack of parallax (circular reasoning),
- we induce, based on angular size, that they’re as large as the sun (or larger).
Galileo’s bluff is an induced rationalization of evidence to fit the premise of heliocentricity. It’s not proof of heliocentricity. The assumption of heliocentricity was made before any measurements of parallax were taken. The way that this affects geometry is summarized in the featured diagram. Assuming heliocentricity means that parallax distance measurements are based on a triangle which has a base 2 AU (astronomical units) wide.
If we assume the opposite, Geocentrosphericity, then the Earth is stationary and the geometry of parallax isn’t affected by any change in it’s position. In this case the stars are not as far away and their angular size is irrelevant. They’re tiny specks. They’re fragments of crystalline firmament material (CFM). The parallax that we measure, the apparent motion of the stars, is the actual motion of the stars. It’s empirical.
Matty's Paradigm 