Whether it does or not does not affect the geometry of the objects in the scene.
You claimed that this was an observation, and not a piece of maths homework.
The "maths homework" is there to determine whether or not the observation is consistent with a flat plane of the lands and sea. I think you realise that.
Don't dither and delay by rambling about "the geometry" - specify what it is that you think can be observed, keeping in mind that the line you drew cannot be the sightline if you do not assume light to travel in a straight line.
Don't steal my question. That's what I've been asking here, and what I asked every flat-earther who came to comment on the YouTube video - "What do you SEE behind and beyond the top of the ship's cranes in the photo? Sea? Sky? Something else?"
Every flat-earther avoids this question like they would avoid a ten-foot pole covered in dog doo-doo.
I asked it earlier in this thread, but you don't appear to have answered it yet, either. And now you simply ask me the same thing?
The line I drew CAN be the representation of the sightline IF light travels in straight lines, and if it did so at the time of my observation. Y/N? But for the time being, the line defines the geometric relationship between the objects.
The suggestion that there is straight vs. curvy suggests that we could draw two distinct sets of geometry; one with the light following straight lines, one with it not. But what would be the basis for drawing the non-straight ones? What curve would they follow? I'm happy to draw the geometry both ways, to do two sets, if you or anyone else can provide some basis for the curvy way.
So for the time being, it's reasonable to take it as straight
You're contradicting yourself. You say that you're not assuming light to travel in a straight line, and that you are assuming it.
No, I'm saying that for consideration of the geometry of the scene, it doesn't matter whether it does or not. The geometry would be consistent between a lit scene and and unlit one. You're trying to dodge out of considering the geometry by mingling the observation and the homework based on it.
Please pick one and stick to it. If it's the latter, I refer you to my very first post on this subject pointing out your blatant dishonesty. If it's the former, then your diagram is not representative of what's seen in the photo, since it makes an assumption about optics that you know to be false.
Again - What do YOU see behind and beyond the top of the ship's cranes in the photo? Sea? Sky? Something else?