Stultis,
He’s referring to the heavens(meaning the skies...which are PART of the EARTH of the earth) as the tent/canopy. He’s not referring to something outside the earth, he’s referring to the earth’s skies themselves.
and I know of Hebrew scholars who disagree with you on that word.
Um, yeah, of course. Why would you think I'm confused about that?
But you're drawing from the fact that the analogy conveys a three-dimensional aspect to the heavens -- they are like a tent -- that three-dimensionality is thereby conveyed to what the tent covers. This is a complete non-sequitor. In every normal case a tent covers a flat and level surface. And there is nothing, absolutely nothing, in this passage to suggest that this analogy should be interpreted in any but the normal way.