Do you want me to prove I am not confused or do you want me to explain how a straight line is an accurate representation of the surface flat earth.
Explaining the latter will prove the former.
Incorrect
So that means that you can't do either. Good to know.
Your conclusion does not follow from my statement.
Your lack of doing either is what supports my conclusion.
My lack of doing so at your demand does not prove that I cannot do it. I have explained how a straight line represents a cross sectional view of the surface of a flat earth. Several times. Is your intention to keep asking the same question over and over in hopes of getting a different answer? I've gotta say, you really don't seem that bright.
A cross section of the surface of the flat earth would show the cross section of the flat earth's terrain. A straight line doesn't do that. Also, a cross section of the flat earth would show the thickness of the flat earth. A straight line doesn't do that either. So I repeat my assertion that you have not yet shown how a straight line is an accurate representation of the flat earth. I'm not sure that you quite have a working grasp of the concepts of straight lines, surfaces or cross sections either.
A flat line is most definitely what you would see when looking at a cross sectional view of the surface of a flat earth. There is no doubt about that. I have only ever been talking about the general shape of the earth. Trying to bring in terrain is silly at this point. But even if we were to include terrain, it is so minuscule relative to the size of the earth that it would hardly be noticeable.
We can do this, no it doesn't, yes it does, no it doesn't thing as long as you like.