It was not an immediate improvement and actually it used more epicycles than the Ptolemaic mode so was more complicated.
But the idea that the Sun is at the centre was taken up by Kepler in his studies of planets' orbits that led to the laws of planetary motion and eventually to the dynamic model of the solar system devised by Newton and others, which is the generally accepted model at the present time.
Yes. The geocentric model was eventually replaced by the heliocentric model. However, the model of deferents and epicycles was retained because it made reasonably accurate predictions which agreed with observations more accurately than preceding systems. The epicycles of Venus and Mercury are always centered on a line between Earth and the Sun (Mercury being closer to Earth), which explained why they were always near it in the sky. The model was eventually replaced by Kepler's elliptical model only when observational methods (developed by Tycho Brahe and others) became sufficiently accurate to raise doubts about the epicycle model.
The early Ptolemaic model placed Earth at the center of the solar system, which led to complex explanations for retrograde motion of planets. The Copernican model shifted the center to the Sun, providing a simpler explanation for planetary movements. Additionally, the Copernican model was supported by observational evidence and eventually gained wider acceptance due to its better predictive power.
No, Tycho believed the Earth was at the centre, and he produced an alternative geocentric model that fully explained Venus's phases, which the old Ptolemaic system failed to do.This spoilt Galileo's argument that the Copernican system must be correct and the Sun must be at the centre. However the modern view is that the Sun is at the centre, for reasons that Galileo was not aware of in his lifetime.
Earth
Galileo promoted the Copernican model of the planets, with the Sun at the centre. The church told him not to say it was the absolute truth but just to teach it as a theory for predicting the planets' positions, pending more conclusive proof. He discovered things with his telescope that raised doubts about the old Ptolemaic system with the Earth at the centre. The moons of Jupiter were definitely not orbiting the Earth, and the full range of Venus's phases were a major failure of the Ptolemaic theory. Galileo maintained this must prove that the Copernican theory must be right: but Tycho produced a model with the Earth at the center that correctly predicted the full range of Venus's phases.
The heliocentric 'theory' is not really a theory at all, more an assertion that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system. Copernicus's theory assumes that the Sun is at the centre and provides a model of the planets' orbits that uses circles and epicycles to explain the observed orbits. He said it was simpler than the old "geocentric" (Earth centred) Ptolemaic system, but it was not really, it actually had more epicycles. Note: Perhaps the questioner got mixed up. The Copernican theory IS a heliocentric theory. Perhaps the question is about the geocentric theory and the Copernican theory. Anyway, Kepler simplified the heliocentric theory and now we know that his model is correct.
yes
the Copernican model proposed a heliocentric view of the solar system, which was contrary to the widely accepted geocentric view of the Ptolemaic model. The Copernican model required substantial evidence and time to gain acceptance and for people to shift their fundamental beliefs about the universe. Additionally, there were religious and philosophical implications associated with the shift from the Ptolemaic to the Copernican model, which added complexity to the transition.
The early Ptolemaic model placed Earth at the center of the solar system, which led to complex explanations for retrograde motion of planets. The Copernican model shifted the center to the Sun, providing a simpler explanation for planetary movements. Additionally, the Copernican model was supported by observational evidence and eventually gained wider acceptance due to its better predictive power.
The Ptolemaic model placed Earth at the center of the universe, with other celestial bodies orbiting around it, while the modern model places the Sun at the center of the solar system, with planets orbiting around it. The Ptolemaic model also incorporated complex epicycles to explain planetary motions, whereas the modern model explains them through the laws of gravity and elliptical orbits.
No, Tycho believed the Earth was at the centre, and he produced an alternative geocentric model that fully explained Venus's phases, which the old Ptolemaic system failed to do.This spoilt Galileo's argument that the Copernican system must be correct and the Sun must be at the centre. However the modern view is that the Sun is at the centre, for reasons that Galileo was not aware of in his lifetime.
Yes, Aristotle's model of the universe does differ from other models, such as the Ptolemaic or Copernican systems. Aristotle proposed that the Earth was the center of the universe and surrounded by concentric spheres, with the outermost sphere containing the fixed stars. This geocentric model was later replaced by heliocentric models proposed by Copernicus and Galileo.
A geocentric theory is one that states the universe is centered by Earth. Geo means earth. The old Ptolemaic Model of the universe has earth as the center. A heliocentric theory is one that is centered by a source of heat. Helio = heat. It basically states that the sun is the center of our galaxy. (Copernican Model)
Earth
The Copernican model challenged the widely accepted geocentric view of the universe, threatening the authority of the Church and established beliefs. Lack of evidence at the time to conclusively prove the heliocentric model also contributed to its slow acceptance. Additionally, the Copernican model did not initially offer more accurate predictions than the geocentric model, further hindering its acceptance.
Galileo promoted the Copernican model of the planets, with the Sun at the centre. The church told him not to say it was the absolute truth but just to teach it as a theory for predicting the planets' positions, pending more conclusive proof. He discovered things with his telescope that raised doubts about the old Ptolemaic system with the Earth at the centre. The moons of Jupiter were definitely not orbiting the Earth, and the full range of Venus's phases were a major failure of the Ptolemaic theory. Galileo maintained this must prove that the Copernican theory must be right: but Tycho produced a model with the Earth at the center that correctly predicted the full range of Venus's phases.
Galileo was able to observe Venus going through a full set of phases, something prohibited by the Ptolemaic system (which would never allow Venus to be fully lit from the perspective of the Earth or more than semi-circular). This observation essentially ruled out the Ptolemaic system, and was compatible only with the Copernican system and the Tychonic system and other geoheliocentric models such as the Capellan and Riccioli's extended Capellan model.
The heliocentric 'theory' is not really a theory at all, more an assertion that the Sun is at the centre of the solar system. Copernicus's theory assumes that the Sun is at the centre and provides a model of the planets' orbits that uses circles and epicycles to explain the observed orbits. He said it was simpler than the old "geocentric" (Earth centred) Ptolemaic system, but it was not really, it actually had more epicycles. Note: Perhaps the questioner got mixed up. The Copernican theory IS a heliocentric theory. Perhaps the question is about the geocentric theory and the Copernican theory. Anyway, Kepler simplified the heliocentric theory and now we know that his model is correct.