No other scientific theory has such damning everyday visual evidence experienced by every single one of us counting against it. Of course there is a stronger burden of proof on something as counter-intuitive as RET than there is for something like the theory of radio waves.
No, this is not about which competing hypothesis is intuitive. Look; there is everyday visual evidence that solid bodies are indeed dense impenetrable objects. Yet we know today that this is an illusion of repulsive electromagnetic forces and that solid bodies are actually composed of atoms which are themselves mostly made of empty space, a fluctuating quantum vacuum of electromagnetic and (negligible) gravitational fields. That view is not intuitive AT ALL, and yet everyone accepts it today. Why? Because the intuitive view is the NAIVE view, and expert evidence points toward the atomic view. Intuition is not always correct.
Intuition tells us immediately that the earth is flat, that the universe is static, that there are no other galaxies, that the sun goes around the earth, and that there are no atoms, and that special relativity and quantum mechanics are bull. But that is because intuition is often the naive point of view, and so it is not some kind of Occam's Razor, like as if you're supposed to pick the best explanation that is consistent with intuition.
Intuition is not at all the epistemological standard we should hold ourselves to. We should look for which hypothesis has the stronger evidence. There is no contradictory evidence against RET, since the earth looks exactly like it should if it were a 4000 mile radius spheroid. People HAVE orbited the earth and report that it indeed looks like a ball when viewed from an altitude high enough that their standpoint was not a naive one. This is very, very, very, very, very, very strong evidence that the earth is round. And so to accept RET's falsehood you must DENY the evidence for a round earth. But why not then deny everything else that is counter-intuitive? e.g. atoms.