I'm just showing you how simplistic it is to see how water cannot stay on a ball.
And as repeatedly explained it does nothing to refute the RE.
All you are doing is showing that it won't stay on a small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
You are in no way showing it can't stick to a round Earth.
Once more, Earth is not some small ball sitting on top of a much larger ball.
It is a massive ball in free fall outside the Roche limit of any more massive object.
If it is in free fall and inside the Roche limit of a much more massive object then, at the surface of the ball, the tidal acceleration towards that much more massive object (the gravitational acceleration towards the object at the surface of the ball, minus the gravitational attraction at the centre of mass of the ball) is larger than the gravitational attraction to the ball, and thus the water will pull away from the ball.
If it is not in free fall, then instead of dealing with the tidal force, you need to deal with the entire gravitational attraction, and if the much more massive object is close enough, then the gravitational attraction to it is greater than the gravitational attraction to the ball and again the water will pull away from the ball towards the much more massive object.
(and all of that is assuming gravity is the only significant force, which means the object needs to be large enough such that electrostatic interactions can't hold the water together)
Again, it in no way refutes the RE. It is entirely consistent with what is expected given the RE model.
It would be just as dishonest as holding a plate sideways and pouring water on it to show that Earth isn't flat as all the water would run off.
Again, you continually attack strawmen of the RE as you know you cannot refute the RE.
And also look at your dishonest double standard, where you reject us using a small ball to represent the RE with no valid objection as if us not standing on it magically changes everything and magically makes the ball invisible; while here you are using a small ball to try to represent the RE.
This again shows that your objections are not those based upon rational thought and instead it is based upon if they show you are wrong or not. You reject anything that shows you are wrong, but are happy to accept any nonsense which agrees with you or which you can dishonestly misrepresent to pretend you are correct.
Meanwhile, we accept the small round object provides some visual similarities but need to note the difference in distance and scale and understand how they impact observations on Earth, and clearly explain why your water on a ball is pure garbage which in no way refutes the RE, due to the fundamental distinction between your nonsense and the RE model.
And again, you ignore the extremely simple question that exposes your lies:
You start looking straight down towards Earth and slowly lift your head up until you are looking straight up at the sky.
What do you see between the land/sea of Earth and the sky?
How does it visually transition?
Unless you have an honest rational answer for this question, it indicates the RE does have a horizon.
There is no evidence...at all.
You choosing to dismiss the evidence as a con-job or ignore it doesn't mean there is none, it just means you are dishonest and wilfully ignorant.
There is plenty of evidence that shows Earth is round, and you have no rational objection to any of it. (for example, the fact that the horizon appears below eye level, with you being able to use the drop to calculate the radius of Earth)
Meanwhile, there is no evidence at all that Earth is flat rather than round.