Historically, the European discovery of heliocentricity was a result of astrological activity. Before Newton both "sciences" evolved parallelly. In astrology there was some incosistency impossible to solve in geocentric model. Because of Christianity rule, open discussion of these problems was impossible (astrology was forbidden officially, but in reality practicized under rich feodals shield). The most strinking problem was "retrograde movement of planets", now called "pseudo-reversal of their course". We know that it results from changing wiewpoint because of simultaneous movements of Earth and other planets. In geocentric model Earth stands in place and retrogradation is impossible.
Of course, early astronomers registered positions of all visible planets (fast moving objects) and stars (slow moving objects). By digital simulations it was simple to prove that stars have one-day period of movement, and return to previous position. Cycles of planets was more complex, as they do not return to the same position next day. Correlation of digital coefficients describing movements of celestial objects fits quite well to heliocentric model and not geocentric-at all.
Of course this was discovered before Copernicus, but early European astronomers lived relatively nearby to Inquisition centers, and Copernicus relatively far, in northern Poland. He had also powerful protection of Polish kings from Jagiellonian dynasty. So, after publishing its theory, the Vaticane preferred to ignore it and prosecute followers of Copernicus in italy.
Galileo, Kepler and other Renaissance astronomers have had "perspectives", which makes impossible for honest observer to support geocentric theory. Relatively slow changing details on Moon and planets surfaces made possible identifications of their movements without correlations.
sophiecentaur said:
Without an appreciation of Gravity, what’s to say the stars don’t go round us but just at a different rate from the Sun? When the Earth is clearly the largest and most important body then why challenge that model?
Partial ignorance is not too hard to mimic but total ignorance is pretty much impossible.
These astronomers and astrologs were not scientists, rather the crafsmans of instruments and ideas. Astronomic observations were important for sailors, astrology was behind many political decisions. So, the consequences of error might be hard. Both disciplines calculate future positions of stars and planets: to accurately fins sailor's position on ocean and to find best day for many human activities. Details of calculation were hidden as the intellectual properties of "scientists", but some informations about such activity were written. In both disciplines gravity was unimportant, so mechanical dynamics was not needed. The results of calculations and observations were only positions of stars and planets. The science of astronomy starts from Newton, his predecessors were generally craftsmans, not scientists. Nota bene, Newton was astrologer, too.
Regards,
zbikraw
