You mean that if you are trying to shoehorn everyday observations into an already falsified hypothesis, then you need to make shit up? You know the FES already call this made up phenomenon "Bendy light"?
Science is not shoehorning. The fact you are biased towards the RE model does not prevent examining alternatives. Is it shoehorning to say the world looks flat out your window because the RE model says it's too large to see curvature, or is that simply explaining observations in light of a model?
I have heard of bendy light. It has never been well-defined, so I don't believe my defined hypothesis can particularly compare. Is it bendy light you are calling falsified, or FE as a whole?
I'd be interested to hear why you think this. the only discussion I've seen where bendy light was claimed to be falsified was a small-scale experiment where any curvature would be negligible.
Refractive objects?
Objects with a high refractive index: water, ice, diamond. (The theory relates to the strong nuclear force: I hypothesize it is an attractive force, similar to the other fundamental forces, with the variable of size).
This should be very easy to prove. Yet there is no evidence that light is "attracted to water" - that's just deeply silly.
It's not attraction to water, it's an attraction to a refractive object. True, no reason for this is yet forthcoming, but neither is there a reason for mass to curve space: certain things are fundamental, and this is intended as such. The refraction observed may be a consequence of this. It would only be easy to test if the force was strong: mostly it would be negligible on the small scale. Looking to the horizon is hardly a small scale.
When my hypothesis is complete, I'll be more than happy to ask for and so conduct tests.
It is easily falsified by the fact if the observer gains height, then the sun, ship or whatever becomes visible again. Plus sunsets, "sinking buildings" etc also occur over land.
Such results are messier over land: water is far smoother. It is very hard to gauge if any large stretch of land is flat enough for such observations to be any more than geographical features.
Ascension would of course make more of the ship visible: you would be seeing the light rays that reflect of the ship in more of an upwards direction. Far less of these would be pulled down to the water (for example).
Sunsets, and indeed much of the Sun's movement, are likely caused by the rays tending outwards, to the so-called ice wall.
Again, I am not claiming this as any more than a hypothesis, and a tenuous one at that. No experiments have been conducted: but it functions as a good hypothesis should. It could explain observations, if true.
I am not proposing a theory. That is far too premature an ask or a claim. A hypothesis, however, this works as.