Almagest Vs Copernicus

In The Almagest and On the Revolutions, written by Ptolemy and Copernicus respectively, the authors explain the various motions of the heavenly bodies and the causes for the reasons that the observers on earth witness such strange phenomena such as the sun seemingly moving faster for one portion of the year than the other, and the wandering nature of the planets. How they explain these phenomena, however, are vastly different as Ptolemy is working with the basic and commonly held assumption that the earth is the center of the universe whereas Copernicus assumes that the sun is, and thus that the earth itself has motion which he explains in his Chapter Five. To say that this is the first point in which the two authors differ, though, would
With such great works, though, questions do arise. One of which is the question of, should their purposes had been the same, namely, had Ptolemy also been seeking truth rather than to explain the data, would they have come to the same conclusion? One must, of course, not take into account the differences in the technology the two had access to as they were so separated in time, and instead assume that they would both be able to reach the same conclusion. And so the question stands, if Ptolemy had taken his inquiry past the individual celestial bodies and instead considered the universe as a system, could he have found a way to account for the quarter day discrepancy that was ever present (Ptolemy, H197), could he have realized that the earth had motion and was not the center of the universe? Assuming Ptolemy had the means, it seems as if he could have, in fact, reached this conclusion. Copernicus states that the reasons for his initial interest in matter stemmed from noticing the discrepancies and disagreements between astronomers, and so if Ptolemy had looked past the observational data and considered the bigger picture, there is no doubt he would have been able to move closer to the conclusion drawn by