Most of the opposition to heliocentrism was on the basis of valid (though incorrect) scientific observations and reasoning. The idea that the entire opposition to Galilei was, "nuh-uh, the Bible says so" is propaganda.
Not only that, but Copernicus was the first to hypothesize heliocentrism and he never got into trouble for it.
Galileo didn't have enough evidence to convince his peers, but he obstinately went on and printed his own book without the Church's approval (the Church was the arbiter of science back then), which could have been overlooked, except in his book he waxed literal about implications for faith and matters of God, which were actually heretical. In his trial, Galileo enraged the inquisition with his attitude, which resulted in house arrest.
It was his attitude, his arrogance, and his actual heretical ramblings that got him into trouble, not his defense for heliocentrism.
Also, in addition to what u/lapalapa said, in Galileo's book, he had the geocentric view be espoused by a character that was a blatant physical caricature of the Pope (who had been a patron of Galileo's) named Simplicio... "simpleton". When you write a book without much factual backing, after being warned not to do so, and you make the strawman of the other side look like the most powerful man in the world and name the character Idiot... well, you're gonna have problems.
The observations of the angular diameter of certain stars. We know now (and Galileo did later show) that from our distance stars are point sources of light. Tycho Brahe however estimated up to 2 minutes of arc for the brightest stars. This diameter was actually caused by bloom because the human eye isn't a perfect lens.
No stellar parallax was observed at the time. The reasoning was that with the apparent diameter of 2 minutes and no observable parallax stars would have to be absolutely massive compared to the sun (far bigger than any actual super giant). This reasoning is correct; it is only Brahe's observations that are incorrect.
That's not actually true and incorrectly makes the geocentric side seem scientifically naive. They did actually know what a reference frame was in the seventeenth century.
Most of the opposition to heliocentrism was on the basis of valid (though incorrect) scientific observations and reasoning. The idea that the entire opposition to Galilei was, "nuh-uh, the Bible says so" is propaganda.
Not only that, but Copernicus was the first to hypothesize heliocentrism and he never got into trouble for it.
Galileo didn't have enough evidence to convince his peers, but he obstinately went on and printed his own book without the Church's approval (the Church was the arbiter of science back then), which could have been overlooked, except in his book he waxed literal about implications for faith and matters of God, which were actually heretical. In his trial, Galileo enraged the inquisition with his attitude, which resulted in house arrest.
It was his attitude, his arrogance, and his actual heretical ramblings that got him into trouble, not his defense for heliocentrism.
Also, in addition to what u/lapalapa said, in Galileo's book, he had the geocentric view be espoused by a character that was a blatant physical caricature of the Pope (who had been a patron of Galileo's) named Simplicio... "simpleton". When you write a book without much factual backing, after being warned not to do so, and you make the strawman of the other side look like the most powerful man in the world and name the character Idiot... well, you're gonna have problems.
The observations of the angular diameter of certain stars. We know now (and Galileo did later show) that from our distance stars are point sources of light. Tycho Brahe however estimated up to 2 minutes of arc for the brightest stars. This diameter was actually caused by bloom because the human eye isn't a perfect lens.
No stellar parallax was observed at the time. The reasoning was that with the apparent diameter of 2 minutes and no observable parallax stars would have to be absolutely massive compared to the sun (far bigger than any actual super giant). This reasoning is correct; it is only Brahe's observations that are incorrect.
The sun fucking goes around the earth in the earth's frame of reference. Have you ever been outside?
That's not actually true and incorrectly makes the geocentric side seem scientifically naive. They did actually know what a reference frame was in the seventeenth century.
I'll grant it's simplistic and I make no claim it was what geocentricity was based on, but it's true by definition.