The model that most scientists at the time favored (including those in the Church) was the Tychonic system. In the Tychonic system the planets all revolved aro

The model that most scientists at the time favored (including those in the Church) was the Tychonic system. In the Tychonic system the planets all revolved around the Sun, but the Sun then revolved around the stationary Earth. This had the advantage of correctly predicting things like the phases of Venus. The reason that it was preferred over the Copernican system was that it additionally predicted that parallax of the stars should not be observed. At the time astronomers had looked for parallax as a way to test the Copernican system, and had not observed it. This was the strongest point in favor of the Tychonic system. As it happened, the stars were much further away than astronomers at the time realized, so the parallax was much smaller than they could have detected with the instruments of the time. (In fact, it took more than two centuries before parallax was detected.) But the point is that I think that if any of us were alive at the time and took careful stock of all the evidence most of us would probably come to the same conclusion that most of the astronomers of time did. Namely that, while interesting, the Copernican system did not have as much evidence supporting it as the Tychonic system did. But if Galileo had built a Foucault pendulum instead, it would have been a very different story!