Just my take on it without doing any experiments or taking any sides.. Flat Earthers seem to take some offence from talking about Gravity, but assuming gravity is real and interacting with individual water molecules instead of thinking of an ocean as one solid chunk of water could explain why it doesn't fly everywhere. I'd be interested in seeing a study with a 10 mile pool being constructed so it's completely straight/flat. (not level, I'll get to that in a minute) a 10km long distance should have a 'drop' of around 66 feet, and if gravity is responsible for keeping water planted on the earth there should be a 30 foot bow in the center of the 10 miles of water to coincide with the curvature of the earth and its gravitational field.

On to the subject of 'level', and the argument about train tracks and shit like that. This is one of the weak points where I can't convince myself the earth is flat. I like to play devils advocate with myself and explore both sides of arguments, especially with things like this where I have no experience or training. Assuming there's gravity, and we aren't just operating in a system of buoyancy and density like flat earthers believe, the gravity and the bubble in a bubble level will give you a reading for your 'local level'. Almost anywhere you go gravity can be assumed to be 'pulling' directly downwards. I'd like to see a test where someone climbs a mountain with a huge amount of mass, and takes a super precise level. Is gravity from the mountain going to skew the measurement a little making level be a little diagonal, or is 'level' still going to be 90degrees from the earths core or directly 'down' in the case of a flat earth? The thing about train tracks is you can build train tracks up and down a mountain, you can build a castle on a mountain. You don't need to take into account the curvature of the mountain, you do landscaping and make the area flat or slanted at an acceptable grade. It's the same thing as a round earth. You don't need to account for 66 feet across 10 miles because trains have no problem traversing grades like that.

10 miles is something like 53000 feet. That equals about 1 foot of curvature per 800 feet, or 66.6 feet with 1 inch of curvature. For most construction this wouldn't even be an issue, but for huge structures that span whole city blocks or are really high you'd end up having to do some extremely precise levelling. For a 666 foot long square structure you would have to account for the center of the structure being about 5 inches 'higher' than the corners, but that's really minor landscaping in the grand scheme of things. It's not that hard to imagine that a city can curve because they build right over hills in some cities, and a tower built 10 miles from another tower would still be 'level' even though it's jutting off the planet at an entirely different angle than the first tower..

I refuse to respond sincerely to that shit talker replying to you and I because when it comes to something like this where I'm actually trying to have a conversation about something (as opposed to talking shit to someone who literally believes the bible) I don't really care to read an insult every second word. He has some good points though, like the stars in the sky rotating instead of moving off into the distance. Stuff like that is too blatant for me to even want to believe in the flat earth, but it does intrigue me something furious nonetheless.

You offered zero proof of your position.

You're a liar. I gave you an event witnessed by millions of people, carving a path across the country, at times and places predicted by a spherical model of the Earth. In return, you offered exactly what I said you would -- shitty ancient models based on local observations that cannot predict the path of the 2017 eclipse. You are a retarded monkey. As I said, I cannot teach a retarded monkey math.

Must suck having a double digit IQ.

Must suck being dumber than a grade-schooler.