You both are supposedly claiming to represent science and true math. On the other hand, you are denying a clear math without doing any math disproves it, because both you know they are true calculations. Hence, you are simply denying their existance.
Like I said, we have been over all this before.
You are the one in denial.
You are the one rejecting science and reality.
Remember this thread
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78033.0where we went over it all, and how you refuted completely and could not defend your claims at all?
Remember this post of mine:
https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=78033.msg2112228#msg2112228Where I provided graphs showing how waves which peak at -2 m do not obscure any more than -2 m, and the most of the distant object is obscured by a wave right at the object?
But if you would like some more numbers/diagrams, how about this one, provided by you:
We have our observer at a height of 2 m. We have a wave at 1 km, and we have that wave blocking no more than 2 km away.
But we don't need any of that.
We can just use the angle to the object directly.
Your wave, at 1 km distance is 1 m below the eye.
Thus the angle to it is given by arctan(1/1000) =~ 0.06 degrees BELOW eye level.
Now lets consider a 1 m tall wave at 2 km distance.
Well now the top is at an angle of arctan(1/2000) =~0.03 degrees BELOW eye level.
Importantly this is above the previous angle. This means the top of the object is visible.
In addition, the bottom of the wave is at an angle of arctan(2/2000)=~0.06 degrees below eye level.
That means the bottom of the distant wave appears to be in line with the top of the closer wave, and thus the closer wave does not obstruct the more distant wave.
That means if Earth was flat that 1 m high wave at 1 km cannot block any more than 2 km.
As for your other nonsense, there is no magical limit of vision.
What you have is a limit of resolution. This is roughly 0.5 arcminutes for a human eye.
But things smaller than that don't magically become invisible. You just cannot resolve detail finer than that.
At 114 km, that would mean the naked eye can resolve 2 objects roughly 17 m apart.
But that is just the naked eye. If you use a decent camera or telescope you can have much better resolution and see finer detail.
so you agreed the earth is flat mathematically
And there you go with more dishonest BS.
I have never agreed Earth is flat mathematically.
I have some times presented math based upon a FE to show that Earth isn't flat, but that is quite different.