As I can see, you two are clones. Perhaps one of ignored one. So that you've been ignored. I will not add you to signature but announce you as clones.

i.e. you have no rational response, no ability to defend your claims, so you make up excuses to ignore people and pretend you haven't been refuted yet again.

It also matches how you repeatedly post your alleged workings in the preachers only section, where it can't get refuted.

With the data you posted, notice how you are basically just pushing it to be horizontal, and then having the wave contribute nothing at all.

Likewise, the buildings are being placed so far away they are shrinking to basically nothing.

This is not a wave blocking the view, it would simply be the object getting too small to see.

But we have devices (e.g. telescopes) that greatly enhance our resolution, allowing us to see these objects much further away.

You are also using radians to make the angles look deceptively small. The limit of human resolution (unaided) is roughly 1 arc minute or 0.0003 radians, so telescopes can easily bring it back into view without the wave obstructing it at all. The 0.0005 degrees you worked out before as the limit of resolution works out to be 0.00000872664626 radians.

But why bother appealing to that when you aren't doing anything like the real world examples given? We aren't talking about a 3m tall ship. Each of the containers on the ship is likely ~ 3 m tall (the standard size is 2.89 m. The ship itself would be 10s of m tall.

Even for your extreme examples, it is clear to see that the building is not obstructed. You have the building/ship at 1.5708, while the wave only blocks to 1.5707. That means the building/ship would be above the wave and still visible (at least with a telescope). You even calculate that ~33% of the building will be visible.

Also, rather than do as the OP had and have a near wave blocking a distant building, you have a wave which is roughly 66~ of the building's height, right next to the building. It isn't surprising that effectively putting a 2 m tall object directly in front (they may as well be touching considering the distance involved) of a 3 m tall object will block the lower 2 m. Likewise, if you were to paint that lower section a different colour, it would be a different color.

If you do it more honestly and inline with the OP, having a near wave and a distant building, such as by keeping the wave at 100 m, then you get vastly different results with the wave never obscuring the building at all.

Alternatively, making it a building which is 10 m tall results in only 20% being obscured even with your dishonest setup.

And we see that lowering the height of the observe to 2 m matching the 2m tall wave results in the lower 2 m being blocked.

It is only when you did what the OP did, pretending the person is below the wave were you made the wave 2 m tall and the person only 1.65 that you were finally able to block the view. But no one is arguing against that.

And rather than show it as an angle of dip, i.e. relative to looking straight out you instead compare it to looking straight down, and use a bunch of unneeded math in the process.

All you need to do to find that peak, if you want to find the angle of elevation would be (using the wave in the below picture) angle=atan(Hwe/dw), noting that if the wave is below the person, the Hwe is negative and so is the angle. Using your variables that would be atan((D-H)/L)

I have remade your spreadsheet, with this correction, and with the angles converted to degrees, and with the wave staying close if anyone wants to look:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1YbEW7cJwlRrNzacdn8OeLiLVUqdNxr1GVYO1buWJezU/edit?usp=sharingAnd how insulting to everyone, you claim that you are exposing dishonesty of REers, when everything in that pile of garbage of yours is dishonest.

Grow up.