Writing same BS does not magically prove anything. Look mister; I draw it with the language you can get, but rabinoz can not.

Yes, that is right. Writing the same BS doesn't magically prove anything.

You posting the same BS won't magically make you correct,

Again, you either deal with angular positions, or real positions.

Pick one and make your diagram.

If you want to go through the math you are making it much harder than it needs to be with all the extra angles (and likely loads of mistakes thrown in).

All you need is their angular position and angular heights.

You have your eye-level, this is your reference.

The important thing is how far below or above something is to your eye-height (both physical and angular height).

So with your eye height at 2 m, everything else needs to drop down 2 m.

This means the relevant height of the wave isn't 1.9 m. It is 0.1 m below your eye level, i.e. h-J.

At a distance of 10 m this results in an angular height of atan((h-J)/X)=atan(-0.1/10)=-0.5729 degrees.

This appears quite small, but as a comparison, the sun is roughly 0.5 degrees.

We can then easily equate this angular height with a physical height much further away.

For example, at a distance of L, it would be L*tan(-0.572938698), so for L=10 000 m, you would be able to see all the way down to ~100 m below eye level.

This can also be done with similar triangles, or by using slopes.

If over 10 m, it drops 0.1 m, then over 10000 m it will drop 10000*(0.1/10) m=100 m

This means this wave would block only object 100 m below eye level.

Or to put it in perspective of ground level/sea level, it would be 98 m below that. So the ground nearer the object will be far more important.

Again, this matches what I have already provided.

If you really need to get all the angles in, then the size of the wave you have calculated is only an approximation.

To do it correctly, you would need to find a difference in angles or use the cosine rule with additional lengths.

The angular size of the wave would be atan(2/10)-atan(0.1/10). This is 10.7370 degrees, not the 10.7579 you show.

To find the angular distance to the wave (from straight down), you don't use atan(2/10). You use atan(10/2). This is 78.6901 degrees.

atan(2/10) will give you the distance to the bottom, from straight out. That would be the 11.3099 degrees you calculated. So placing it at the bottom is either wrong or very deceptive.

This means the top of the wave would be 89.4271 degrees from straight down or 0.5729 degrees down from straight out.

You did get the apparent height of the ship correct. That is because you actually have the right angle triangle needed.

So it would be atan(2/10000)=0.0115 degrees.

But you got the angular distance to the ship wrong from the wave. Completely wrong.

The angle you started finding (the sum) is the angle from straight down out to the ship.

That means when it comes time to subtract the angle, you need to subtract the one that is from straight down for the wave as well.

So that means what you actually want is (90-atan(2/10000))-atan(10/2)=11.2985 degrees.

This is larger than the angular size of the wave.

That means the bottom of the distant ship will be able the wave.

Even using the numbers you provided you end up with the bottom of the ship above the wave.

So no, what we actually see is that the wave does not block the view to the ship. The ship should still be clearly visible, even with us only 10 cm above the top of the wave.

And no, our height of 2 m is VERY important. It is important because it places us above the wave.

Also, it is the height of the wave which determines how high you need to go, not the height of the object.

Edit: fixed a typo.