I did, for many hours and after that, I still from time to time watch some videos of Flath earthers, just for fun (like some kind of sci-fi).
Do few mouse clicks and see that such model does not work
1. Regarding day and night, the author of the video asks how is it possible that the light from the sun shines on one-half of the flat earth and not reach the other half? He has committed an a priori assumption thinking that day and night can never converge at the same place at the same time. That is not so. For an explanation, rather than paste the link, just type "Day and night side by side on a flat earth" in Youtube search.
2. Same thing with the seasons as the author mistakenly presumes that the seasons on the flat earth model are based upon the distance of the sun from the earth; i.e., higher in the Winter and closer in the Summer. If you bothered to read my explanation I already wrote that the sun is close and small and
circles around and above the flat earth in a
spiral pattern on the Tropic of Cancer in the Northern Summer months, and then down to the Tropic of Capricorn in the Northern Winter Months. So when the sun is further away from the North Pole, it’s winter in the north and summer in the south. Seasons are not function of the suns' distance from the earth. The author did not even bother to find out how the flat earth works and instead proposed his own superficial, not to mention false analysis.
3. Regarding the coriolis effect, the fact is not all storms consistently rotate clockwise in the N. Hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the S. Hemisphere.
4. Regarding the stars, I've seen various explanations including the hypothesis that the firmament/dome creates distortion that accounts for why the stars appear differently in the Southern and Northern hemispheres. I'm not particularly convinced of that explanation though since I haven't done enough study in that area.
5. Regarding eclipses, flat earthers as far as I can tell don't have any adequate explanation and can only speculate but that does not by default make the heliocentric model the only single explanation. For the example the ancient Mayans were skilled in mathematics and their observations of the stars were surprisingly accurate including their predictions of solar eclipses - yet they believed in a flat, stationary earth. Unfortunately their ancient working knowledge of astronomical observances/calculation is lost to us today.
The point of the above is that there are plausible explanations in support of the geocentric model but the most damning evidence against the heliocentric model in my opinion is that Scripture never describes creation in terms approximating the heliocentric model. The earth in Scripture is always described as flat and stationary with the moving sun and moon, each having their own light, together with the stars placed in the firmament.