That's pretty funny, because a book I read about the Copernican revolution says that the prevailing attitude among astronomers during Copernicus' period was the exact opposite. Namely that Heliocentrism was not generally promoted or accepted as an accurate model of the heavens, but did gain acceptance as having a few computation advantages.

In particular, it removed the need for a particular type of epicycle called an Equant. Ironically, the Equant somewhat resembles Kepler's second law, meaning it arguably is a better approximation of reality than Copernicus' circles-only Heliocentric model.

I'm not sure I can find the exact book. There's, like, so many books about Copernicus on Amazon. This is my best guess: https://www.amazon.com/Book-Nobody-Read-Revolutions-Copernic...