Tom's language is too vague to interpret. Ask him to be specific. Tiny waves? How do you draw that? What are these tiny waves? Where do they come from?

Your point cannot be taken seriously until you validate it.

have a look at the various threads on perspective. He tends to disappear whenever the paradox in his views is pointed out.

Point is, the dimensions and angles involved are so big, that not even a tsunami could cause the sunset, unless it was already on your face.

The FE sun is ~20° above the horizon at sunset. Unless photons start behaving differently at a distance.

The sun can only get to ~20 degrees above the horizon if you use a model which does not accurately account for perspective. Under the model you are referencing the horizon could not exist at all. It would be impossible for anything to get to the horizon line. Railroad tracks could never get to the horizon. However, we know that railroad tracks and other bodies DO get to the horizon in reality. This means that your model, based on an Ancient Greek continuous universe theory, is wrong.

Perspective places the horizon line at eye level. Therefore any slight increase in altitude at the horizon can block out things beyond it, much like a dime can obscure an elephant. Take a dime and hold it at arms length in front of an elephant, and the elephant is obscured. This is how the horizon can obscure things.

As always, you use a terrible example in your 'proof' for the horizon. Your claim requires the basic mathematics to fail beyond a certain distance for reasons you have never explained, nor shown to exist in reality. Let's take your train tracks example, shall we?

The US standard for gauge is 4 feet, 8 inches. Let's place our observer precisely in the middle of the tracks, so there's 2 feet, 4 inches to either side of him. The tracks form a perpendicular to his location so we've got 90 degrees. Let's make the math a touch easier and say he's got 1 meter to either side of him. (I'll happily come back to 2 ft, 4 in if you insist, but the distances won't be too measurably different.) So we've got the first two points we need to check this triangle. The last will be distance of the rails. I'll grab some numbers and let's see what we get back for angles.

10 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 11 degrees. Sure, I can still see that clear separation.

25 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 4.5 degrees. Well by all accounts we can still see that separation can't we?

50 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 2 degrees. At roughly half a football field away, we're still seeing them apart from one another. Sounds right.

100 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 1 degree. A full football field away we can still tell the difference? I think our tracks are getting a touch small, but I think so. The boards likely help some.

200 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.5 degrees. Two football fields away. The tracks are still separated. Can we tell though? Well, the human eye is said to start failing at about an angular size of 0.02 degrees. So assuming the tracks are nice bright colors, we're still seeing it. (Bright colors simply to help distinguish the tracks from the brown around them as otherwise we've potentially lost track of them and are judging based on the wood.)

500 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.2 degrees. Still discernible.

1000 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.1 degrees. Alright, still there. How about we kick this up a bit.

1600 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.07 degrees. This is about 1 mile, visible in a number of places, and still seeing the difference.

5700 meters: Tracks are parted by an angle of about 0.02 degrees. This is about 3.5 miles distant. Right about the horizon line for our viewer. We see these rails just about coming together at about that location normally don't we?

Seems the 'ancient Greek math' matches the reality pretty well so long as one takes into account the known angles the eye can tell things apart. Should we see how far away your sun has to be to get anywhere near that for the ocean? Largest wave ever recorded was 100 ft high. Let's say that's a nice 30 m high. The horizon is 5700 meters away, how about we put the wave right there.

5700 meters away, 30 meters high, 90 degree angle on the wave gives us an angle of; 0.3 degrees to the top of the wave. We're still seeing it by a pretty good margin. But wait, where's the sun supposed to be again?

9.656.000 meters away, 4.828.000 meters high, 90 degree angle to directly beneath it gives us an angle of; 26.56 degrees up to the sun. Hmm, I'm spotting a problem here. There's no way that wave is blocking our view of the sun. Well alright, how can we get our wave to block the sun? How far away does it have to be?

4.828.000 meters high, 90 degree angle right below it, 0.3 degree angle to it, gives us a distance of; 922.071.651 meters. AKA 572.948.761 miles away. Just over half a billion miles. That would be a pretty large Earth wouldn't it?

For the record, the Earth is said to dip 2.55 meters over the 5700 meters to the horizon. This gives us an angle of 0.026 degrees. Just about the angle we can detect. Imagine that. Sure explains why the horizon 'rises to eye level' too doesn't it?

So Tom, how about telling us just what the path the light takes to get to ones eye so that it's blocked by our wave? Because it can't be coming straight from the sun in order to get there, or it wouldn't vanish behind the ocean waves at all. Alternatively show exactly how the math is wrong, and perhaps we can have a discussion.

EDIT: God damnit, Q&A again with this question. Perhaps this should just get moved over to debate? I feel the FE answer to his question has been suitably given, but this sort of thread isn't going to stay Q&A very long right now methinks.