I understand it just fine, and so do you. I know what you are doing, you know what you are doing, it's silly and unproductive. Like I said you have discussed these topics before. Tell you what, when you finish dodging Jack and answer him, I will give you a definition that even you could follow, I might even do it in crayon for you.
Get your crayons out and show me. I ask for the simplest form of explanation, so let's see it.
Your attempts at ridicule are so mild they're almost pleasant.
I welcome the child like explanations.
Still waiting for you to accomplish your task.
Here is a sample then... Spacetime is the structure of the universe.
Explain what you mean. In crayon terms, as you go with.
He clearly gave you conditions for that. You have not fulfilled those conditions so he isn't playing your game.
You need to stop dodging and answer me.
Exactly which questions I'm not sure about.
What is the one directly above it where I asked you just what the conjob was?
How my providing simple math to show how insignificant the 8 inches per mile squared is is somehow a conjob because it shows you are wrong?
Or was it the earlier one about plumb and level, and how even you have admitted that on a globe level (and thus plumb) will "tilt", such that level in 2 locations on Earth are not aligned and that means that 2 vertical, plumb towers, at different locations on Earth, will "tilt" away from each other and thus the tops will be further apart than their base, even though they are plumb, which makes perfect sense and follows quite simply and clearly using very simple logic, and goes directly against your attempt to pretend the RE is wrong by falsely claiming that the RE would require the towers to magically point towards each other in the middle. And how I asked just what doesn't make sense for the globe?
Or the earlier one, directly related to the topic of the OP, of just what magic results in the lighthouse magically being invisible on a RE, regardless of distance and height, in direct contrast to what plain and simple logic clearly shows where the ability to see a distant object is dependent on your distance to the object, the height of the object and your eye-height? Where instead of addressing the issue you instead continually appealed to a level sight with a FOV of 0?
And you need to provide evidence that they are physically using a global mindset to engineer against.
So you think they are just lying and pretending?
Because so far all that has been provided clearly shows they are using a global mindset.
The only way to claim otherwise is to claim that is all just being faked, that they are blatantly lying about what they are doing.
No. It sounds an awful lot like clear logic when I know water is level and flat when it's calm.
No it doesn't.
It sounds like an outright lie.
Again, so far all you have for that is that you can't detect the curve in a sink.
But a sink is far too small to detect the curve because you simply do not have tools accurate enough to detect that completely insignificant curve.
You need to go to much larger distances, like looking at an object over a lake, where the water obstructs the view to the bottom, clearly showing the water is curved.
So no, what you are spouting does not sound like clear logic at all.
If you want it in the actual "logical" form:
The RE predicts the curvature over this tiny region should be insignificant and immeasurable without extremely precise tools.
I can't measure any curvature over this tiny region.
Therefore there is no curve.
In reality, your conclusion should be "This observation is consistent with a RE, with curvature which is too small to detect over this tiny region".
And the other part related to that:
I am standing in one location entirely above water level.
I am looking towards a distant object, also entirely above water level.
I can see the top of the object.
I can compare this view with a view of the object from much closer, which shows the bottom should clearly be resolved and from this position appears to be significant below the horizon, below water level.
But I know Earth and thus water level must be flat and thus it must be some other convoluted BS which results in the bottom magically being obscured and what is visible magically appearing lower.
That "conclusion" quite clearly isn't logic. It is religion, where you have already have your conclusions and invent whatever BS you need to try to prop it up.
The actual conclusion, based upon actual logic, is that the water clearly curves to obstruct the view to the bottom of the object.
So no, simple logic clearly shows that level water curves, that this curvature is insignificant over a short distance and thus cannot easily be measured in a sink; but over a long enough distance the curvature is so great that it obstructs the view to the bottom of objects and makes them appear lower as if they have sunk into the water.
So no, it sounds clearly like religion, not clear logic.
If you wish to disagree, feel free to "correct" the actual logical conclusion, making sure you take note that in a sink, the absence of you being able to measure curvature in your sink is entirely consistent with the negligible curvature expected for a RE, and that over very large distances, objects appear to sink below the horizon, with the water appearing to obscure the view to the bottom, even though both the observer and object are above water level.
If you need to ignore that, then what you are doing is religion, not logic.