I'm right.

Then why are you completely incapable of defending your outright lie?

If all you have is a baseless assertion that you are right, then you have nothing.

Can you justify your lie at all?

Can you explain anything wrong with my diagram to explain how doesn't completely refute your claim?

You understand plumb and you also understand that your towers are not plumb.

You mean if I have no idea what plumb is and instead just follow your delusional BS.

Unfortunately for you I do understand what plumb is. It means it is vertical, i.e. aligned with the direction of gravitational acceleration.

For the very real RE you are so desperate to reject using whatever dishonest BS you can, the towers I drew were plumb.

Yes, there is the technicality that Earth is actually an oblate spheroid rather than a sphere, so it does get distorted slightly from the centre. But lets keep it simple, considering you seem completely incapable of anything even slightly complex and treat Earth as a perfect sphere.

In that case, plumb is directly towards/away from the centre.

The towers will start at the surface of Earth and point outwards, away from the centre. Kind of like spokes on a bicycle wheel.

It doesn't matter how many of them you have, any 2 you pick will tilt away from each other.

You can clearly see this by continuing it down to the centre of Earth, as that shows what the angle is.

The distance between the tops of any pair of towers will be larger than the distance between their bases.

You can even throw in some numbers.

And yes, I know how much you hate math and numbers because of how easily it shows your claims to be pure BS, but I don't care.

If you were honest you wouldn't hate it and instead would accept that you were wrong.

If you have an arc which subtends an angle of a (in radians), with a radius of r, the length of the arc will be a*r. (The length of the chord is 2*r*sin(a/2), which for small enough angles is close enough to 2*r*a/2 = a*r.

This means if we have 2 towers, which are pointing directly away from the centre of Earth (again, simplified to a perfect sphere to help you "understand" (i.e. admit you are wrong, I refuse to believe any could be stupid enough to not understand)), which subtend some angle a and have a height of h, the length along Earth's surface at the base will be lb=a*R, where R is the radius of Earth.

Then for their tops, that has increased the radius to R+h, and thus the length along the arc at the top of the towers will be lt=a*(R+h).

We can also easily see that a=lb/R, and thus lt=lb*(R+h)/R.

We can also find how much further apart they are at the top:

ed = lt-lb = lb*(R+h)/R - lb = lb*[(R+h)/R - 1] = lb*[(R+h)/R - R/R] = lb*[(R+h) - R]/R = lb*[R + h - R]/R = lb*h/R.

For simplicity, lets say the towers are 6.371 km tall, with a 1 km distance between their base, measured along the surface of Earth, which has a radius of 6371 km.

Then the extra distance at the top will be 1*6.371/6371 km = 0.001 km = 1 m.

If we now look at the next tower out, lb becomes 2 km, and we end up with 2 m.

The simple fact is your claim is pure delusional BS with no connection to reality at all. Now can you defend it or just throw out more baseless assertions?

If not, care to go back to the lighthouse and explain what magic prevents us from seeing even a tiny angle away from directly level such that we magically only see along one line with 0 degree FOV (i.e. no FOV at all)?