I agree with the answer of David, but I would like to add few points to it:
- It is a common misconception that Aristarchus found (or attempted to find) the sizes of Sun and Moon or distances to them. What his surviving book contains is a method of finding the RATIO of the distance to the Sun to the distance to to the Moon. He estimated this ratio
(with a gross error) and it is likely that he made no actual observations.
The only way to find the distance to the Moon available to the ancients was measuring its parallax and finding the radius of the Earth. The early attempts to estimate the distance led only to the statements that "Moon is probably bigger than Peloponnese".
Archimedes (in Psammites) briefly mentions various opinions on the sizes of Sun and Moon,
and says that "according to majority of astronomers Sun is bigger than the Earth". Ptolemy, who wrote much later computed that Sun is 5 1/2 bigger than Earth (diameter).
- I am sure that astronomers of antiquity as well as later ones understood that kinematically the heliocentric system is EQUIVALENT to the geocentric one, and the choice between them is a question of mathematical convenience.
To decide what "really rotates about what" one needs physics (dynamics). And all reasons which Ptolemy gives against rotation of the Earth (I mean rotation about its axis) are based on physics. And his physics was wrong. Galileo's physics which he used to justify
heliocentric system was also wrong by the way.
To refute that Earth has any other motion, Ptolemy refers to the absence of parallax.
And he is right. More than 1000 years had to pass before parallax could be observed.
The correct physics was discovered by Newton, and the acceleration of the Earth was confirmed experimentally only in 18-th century.
The argument that Sun is bigger than the Earth does not prove anything: who knows what
the Sun is made of? Perhaps it is bigger but the Earth is heavier? Comet tails are much bigger in size than the Sun, btw.
To conclude, there was no real reason in antiquity to prefer the heliocentric system
in comparison with geocentric one. Physics was not sufficiently developed.
And without physics the question is meaningless.
EDIT. Let me use this opportunity to explain one general misunderstanding which is very common (see the comments of David Hammen).
All scientific theories are APPROXIMATIONS to reality. Every scientific theory explains certain class of phenomena. We do not have and probably will never have a "theory of everything" which will explain everything, with absolute precision. So it is WRONG to say that Newton mechanics is
"incorrect". It is correct. It is one of the MOST SUCCESSFULL scientific theories ever found. It explains the motion of planets perfectly (except ONE very small correction related to Mercury). It explains a lot of other things, and a lot of technology is based on it. But it was never supposed to explain such things as light or electricity.
This is why it is CORRECT, and this is why it is taught in all physics courses.
Electromagnetism and the workings inside the atom are simply out of the scope of classical mechanics. And we have different theories which explain these things.
The question was about motion of planets. Motion of planets is COMPLETELY explained by Newtonian mechanics (except one little correction that I already mentioned).
Similarly, Ptolemy's theory is CORRECT. It explains and permits to predict the motion of the planets. Look at the modern Astronomical Almanac. It describes the motion of the planets
in Ptolemy's terms! And to compute this almanac, trigonometric series are used (which is the same as epicycles). It is another matter that we have different theories about planets which are better for other purposes. But Ptolemy's theory does what it is supposed to do.
On the other hand, Aristotle's physics is INCORRECT. It cannot be used to predict anything quantitatively. It contradicts the experiments.