[ack1308]

Regarding the satellite dish alignment, how can something stay in one place in the sky when everything else moves around on a 24 hour cycle?

In the heliocentric model, it's simple.  Satellites orbit the Earth, each one with a a particular period mandated by the distance from the Earth.  The Moon is 400,000 km away, and its period is one month (more or less).  Artificial satellites are usually much closer (though more than 100 km up, that being the nominal edge of the atmosphere) and have much shorter orbital periods.  With me so far?

Well, low earth orbit satellites can whip around the globe in a matter of minutes.  They're really moving.  The farther away they are, the longer they take to get around the Earth (both travelling farther and going slower).  It's just a matter of calculation to find the orbital distance that gives you a period of 24 hours; that is, the satellite goes around the Earth in exactly the same length of time that the Earth takes to rotate (as it happens, this is about 40,000 km up).  From the ground, the satellite seems to just hang overhead.  Note that this can only be done in the equatorial plane, as the satellite is still tracking around the centre of Earth's gravity.  Note also that Arthur C Clarke predicted the concept of geosynchronous orbits long before they put a satellite in one.

So that's how it works with a globe.  My question to you is, given the proven existence of geosync satellites ... how would they stay up in a flat earth scenario?  In fact, how do any satellites stay up in a flat earth setup?

[Macarios]

So I was reading Through the wiki and came across the Burden of Proof section the one example I found confusing is:

If two people are having a debate, should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who make the most complicated claim, or should the burden of proof rest on the shoulders of the person who makes the simplest and easily observable claim?

I find in an debate both sides have to provide evidence or you are not actually having a debate.

In court prosecution has to prove "beyond reasonable doubt" that defendant is guilty.
Prosecution and defence work against each other.
They compete.

Science is not court.
In science there's no defendant.
We work together on progress, not against each other.
Purpose of scientific debate is not personal victory.
We all give as much proof as we can.
We cooperate.

When I say something, I KNOW what and why I'm saying, and I WILL prove it if possible, whether "burden of proof" is on me or not.
If you don't understand, or don't believe, just ask and I will explain.

Unless I'm silenced.
.

[JohnAdams1145]

I'll add that discussion of the "burden of proof" is counterproductive to science education and changing people's beliefs, because you're effectively moving the goalposts from "we know with 99.999999999999999999999999999999% certainty that the Earth is round" to "you can't prove we're wrong" -- when Round Earth is clearly in the right, and we can easily demonstrate the former. If we shift the burden of proof to the Flat Earthers, their attempts at using science/experiments to support their hypothesis will fall ... flat ... but we won't convince them; as Tom Bishop said in another thread, he believes that Round Earth hasn't provided "direct evidence" to show how wrong Flat Earth is (that's wrong... it's just he doesn't understand how many of our so-called "assumptions" were derived/verified).

If you're trying to convince someone else of the truth, then the burden of proof is on you. Of course, that doesn't mean that the other side can unreasonably ask you to re-prove the most basic facts (like 2+2 = 4 or the Law of Cosines or calculus); they should be willing to do research on things they're ignorant about. I believe that Round Earth people should take on the burden of proof and prove to beyond a reasonable doubt that the Earth isn't flat. It's horribly easy to do, as long as the other side is willing to listen.

Another thing that I realized: we talk about "burden of proof" in situations where the information is incomplete; burden of proof is related to what we should assume by default. In a debate about the roundness of the Earth, all of the cards are in Round Earth's pile; the information is relatively complete and we need not resort to shifting a burden that we can easily carry.