<not close enough to be a reply>

Really?

Just want to bury your head in the sand and pretend all the refutation of your nonsense isn't a reply?

Deal with what has been said.

In this example;

You clearly demonstrate that an observer at point a will be able to see an object at point c. That the obstruction at point b will not obstruct any of the object at point c. (At least assuming Earth is flat).

the angular size

Your diagram is dealing with physical locations and sizes, and direct lines of sight.

There is no need to invoke angular size for such a diagram.

If you wish to invoke it you need to use angular position and have a diagram of what is seen.

You will then no longer have lines radiating from a point at a. Instead a will be the entire left axis, with all the angles available.

You will produce an image like the ones I already provided. For this specific case (including the false assumption that Earth is flat) you would have something like this:

On the left, you have the diagram using the physical sizes and physical position.

On it lines of sight radiate from the observer at (0,0).

This line of sight will touch the top of the wave at point b and the bottom of the object at point c.

This means the wave at b will not block the view of the object at point c.

On the right, you have the diagram using angular sizes and angular position.

On it lights of sight are horizontal, as the entire left side represents the observer at point a.

Again, the line of sight will touch the top of the wave at point b and the bottom of the object at point c.

This means the wave at b will not block the view of the object at point c.

It doesn't matter if you use angular sizes and positions or if you use physical sizes and positions, the result is the same.

The wave at point b does not block the object at point c.

You are wrong. Deal with it.

I have showed both cases over limit states with integral formulas.

You mean you have needlessly tried to over-complicate it to pretend the wave will magically block the view.

There is no need for any integration. You can use arctan directly, like I did and see that the top of the wave will align with the bottom of the object.

The first of these, that is, the angular height value depending on the distance is -in general- smaller than the angular height value depending on the height.

And amazingly, 1 km is much larger than 1 m.

So that is entirely consistent.

In order to prevent the wave blocking the view, you need to go up 1 m (so you are above the wave) or away an additional 1000 m.

That 1 m of height and 1000 m of distance produce the same angular distance.

So no problem there.

The short of the explanations above denied by these two angry globalists but proved to be entirely scientifically based are the following:

No, they have not merely been denied.

They have been conclusively refuted, with you just ignoring the refutation so you can pretend your flat fantasy Earth is real.

Your claims have been shown to have no scientific merit at all.

Science does not work by simply ignoring that which refutes it. That would be religion.

Here we see a shape. The middle object is half the size of the object in the background. Here, regardless of the distance of the objects, mathematically and geometrically, you always see half of the object behind; -theorically-.

Not just theoretically, also in reality.

We can see from the example that these two objects have the same angular size. In other words, these two objects are the same size according to the observer at point O. It is therefore impossible to see half the object behind the obstruction of the front object.

No, it is still entirely possible to see half the object. It will just appear smaller. That doesn't magically mean it will be hidden by the other object.

You keep appealing to angular size, but ignore the angular position.

Your claims are just as stupid as saying because your big toe (or hand or foot or thumb, or loads of other things that are right in front of you) can completely cover your eye, you cannot see anything at all because your toe would block the view.

However, since you are looking "over" object A, you can still see object B at this stage. And we can calculate this value as follows:

How about we do it properly, shall we?

Apparent bottom position of object A:

atan(-h/h)=-45 degrees.

Apparent top position of object A:

atan(0/h) = 0 degrees.

Angular size of object A:

0 - (-45) = 45 degrees.

Apparent bottom position of object B:

atan(-h/2h)=-26.57 degrees.

Apparent top position of object B:

atan(h/2h)=26.57 degrees.

Angular size of object B:

26.57 - (-26.57) = 53.14 degres.

But object A covers from -45 degrees to 0 degrees.

That means we will only see object B from 0 degrees to the top of object B.

So angular size of visible portion of B:

26.57 - 0 = 26.57 degrees.

So amount visible:

26.57/53.14 = 0.5 = 50%.

Just like reality and math indicates, and nothing like your nonsense.

Apparent height of B: h

Angular size of apparent B = arctan (h/2h) = 26.

With your nonsense you are trying to get an angular size from an angular size. That makes no sense at all.

If you want to determine the angular size of an object, you use its physical size, i.e. it should be:

Actual size of B: 2h.

Angular size of B = arctan(2h/2h).

But even that is incorrect as you aren't finding a tangent, you are finding a chord.

Instead it should actually be:

Angular size of B = 2*arctan(h/2h), where you actually use 2 tangents.

You can also see this if you actually bother with units.

Instead of just using h, lets use h m.

So the ACTUAL size of A is h m and the ACTUAL size of B is 2 h m.

The apparent size is then measured in angles.

The apparent/angular size of A is 45 degrees, and the apparent/angular size of B is 53.14 degrees.

You make a mistake in saying that B has the same angular size as A, which you falsely declare as h, but taking the initial assumption, that would not give you h m. It would give 45 degrees.

So now you are left with the following nonsene:

nonsense regarding B = arctan(45 degrees / (2 h m)). This makes no sense at all.

You cannot take the arctan of units.

Your entirely flawed argument relies upon first finding the angular size of B, and then pretending that the angular size of B is its physical size.

That is pure nonsense.

So you are wrong, yet again.

I have touched on this issue before.

Yes, you have touched on it before, in the thread I linked, where you had your arguments entirely refuted and you then fled as you cannot face reality.

Now deal with the refutations or stop claiming you are correct.