Star Size Illusion

On the topic of the size of the stars, see this story which describes that the visible stars are truly huge. Since a heliocentric model requires distant stars, the measurable diameters of the stars shows that the sizes would need to be of tremendous proportions. It was one of the early controversies in astronomy. The geocentric model's closer stars seemed more reasonable. In response Copernicans appealed to the mystery of God and the Copernicans of later eras postulated an "optical illusion".

The Popular Creation Story of Astronomy is Wrong
The Popular Creation Story of Astronomy Is Wrong — Nautilus (Archive) Christopher M. Graney (bio)

The old tale about science versus the church is wide of the mark.

The Case Against Copernicus — Scientific American
On this same topic also see this Scientific American article about the history of Heliocentrism vs. Geocentrism starting on p.75:

The Case Against Copernicus — Scientific American Dennis Danielson and Christopher M. Graney

From the article:



The Illusion
In later years Copernicans argued that the size of the visible of the stars were an illusion, and cite an observation of stars winking out when touching the edge of the Moon:

Planet Size Contradictions
This star size illusion contradicts with the size of planets, which were taken to be their true sizes. Professor Graney explains:

Galileo's Star Division Experiment
Interestingly, astronomer Galileo Galilei claimed to be able to divide stars with a terrestrial experiment. Galileo claimed to see an effect which should be impossible according to the star size illusion.

Professor Graney relates Galileo's claims (Archive):

Strange Tales of Galileo and Proving: Splitting the Stars



''A star seen through a telescope of very small aperture. This illustration is from the Treatise on Light by the nineteenth century astronomer John Herschel (son of William Herschel). Center—simulated view of the star supposedly divided in half by Galileo’s distant beam. Right—simulated view showing how, after a period of months, the Earth’s motion relative to the star might cause the position of the beam against the star to change ever so slightly, proving that Earth indeed moves. If, after one year, the star is once again divided in half by the beam, then Earth’s motion around the sun (in which it returns annually to the same place) will be clearly demonstrated.''



Galileo’s divided star could never happen!

This observation is impossible under the theory of star illusions needed to salvage the Copernican model, of course, and so Professor Graney declares that Galileo is a liar.

Addendum
In contradiction to the expected thought, the stars do not shrink according to the laws of perspective. The sizes of the stars cannot be directly computed based on apparent size, which would otherwise introduce unacceptable absurdities to the system. An illusion is invoked to explain why the stars do not all dwarf the Sun in size.

Professor Graney says that the illusion is contradicted by Astronomer's usage of the planets by their apparent sizes, and by Galileo's star division experiment. The explanation for the star illusion only works if Galileo is called a liar, and that he is perpetuating fake experiments which contradict the illusion theory. It is quite curious that Galileo is championed by science in one sentence and is called a scientific fraud in the next.

In regards to the 'outdated' nature of the story—Kepler is still cited for his laws of planetary motion, Newton is still cited on gravity, and Galileo is still cited for heliocentrism and his Equivalence Principle experiments. Einstein came up with Relativity over 100 years ago. Aristotle's proofs are thousands of years old, and still cited. The star story above is certainly still cannon to the RE and heliocentric theories.