In science being right is nowhere close to enough, otherwise it's speculative fiction, a fairy tale, you have to provide convincing reasons, you have to demonstrate that you have considered alternative explanations (hypotheses) and after this process there remains one standing.

Sadly, Aristarchus's hunch was way ahead of his times and one could not convincingly explain the absence of screaming winds, absence of stellar paradox, could not convincingly explain why weights dropped from a height were not left behind as the Earth below spun away at fantastic speed.

In this duel of ideas I think the critics of Aristarchus's idea's were great scientists as measured by current standards, although they were wrong, they were wrong for the right reasons.