Unfortunately, I'm not getting any additional perspective here from simple concepts being drawn out at excruciating length. Neither do I see any evidence of "scientific knowledge" in any deep sense. I have literally explained things like this to five-year-olds, who understood it just fine. (Admittedly, not average five-year-olds, but rather ones with a history of having a lot of stuff explained to them.)

Yes, context matters. I get it. I don't need a thousand words to convince me. Nobody else in science does either. If one doesn't understand context supremely well, one can't make any progress working in the sciences.

Additionally, your level of understanding seems really limited. Given that context matters, you don't just go, "Oh! Wow. Huh. I guess this is a good analogy to motivate why gravity is different from other forces, somehow." Instead, you ask whether you can avoid being burdened by context that ought to be irrelevant to what you're focused on. If you parameterize things in spherical coordinates--and note that "north" normally means "direction of decreasing theta" not "positive z"--then jumping is +r and moving north is -theta. Correctly parameterize your system and the the sensitivity to context goes away, at least in part. Parameterize weirdly--cylindrical coordinates centered on Uranus--and wow, what a lot of context you have to worry about! This endeavor of coming up with general rules and removing context-dependency to the degree practical is a central aspect of model-building in science.

If you were talking to an artist and patiently explaining over hundreds and hundreds of words that paint is not only different colors but also can be lighter and darker, and that's what everyone is missing, it would be a rough analogy to what you seem to be trying to describe to "scientists".