According to my quick calculation the deviation of the surface of the earth over 6m is roughly 689nm (yes nano-meters), very difficult to measure.
h=6534km(1-cos(0.003km/6534km))
This is why my example of starlight is so good as a demonstration of bendy light being nonsense. You have thousands of miles for the light to travel.
The two examples are fundamentally different, since you can observe both sides of a 6m experiment but can only triangulate to observe the other end of a stellar experiment. Triangulation often assumes the radius of the Earth, but perhaps you can provide a diagram or example of a stellar measurement where this is not done.
If bendy light were real, starlight coming towards us from lower in the sky would shift its apparent position more than starlight coming from higher in the sky.
You make the fallacy that starlight comes from the postion in the sky where it appears to come from. In doing this, you show complete misunderstanding of bendy light theory.
Nope, I don't make that fallacy at all. This method of debunking bendy light in fact relies on the very idea that the light would appear to come from somewhere else. You really are a bit dim aren't you? Let me clout you with the idea some more, see if it sinks in:
1. If bendy light is true, the apparent position of an object in the sky (unless directly overhead) will not be its true position.
2. The discrepancy between an object's true position and its apparent position increases the further that object is from a direct overhead position.
3. Therefore, an object nearer the horizon will have its position adjusted more than an object higher in the sky.
4. This can be expressed as the amount of positional adjustment being proportional to height above the horizon.
5. To make a simple example of stars, let's make Star A to be Polaris and Star B to be Vega, in Lyra. We are at latitude 52 degrees North.
6. Polaris will always maintain the same height above the horizon. Vega's height above the horizon will vary as it rotates around the celestial pole.
7. When Vega is the same height above the horizon as polaris, the light from both stars must logically be bent by the same amount.
8. When Vega is higher in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent by less. When it is lower in the sky than Polaris, its light will be bent more.
9. The result of this variance in bending will be a variance in how much Vega's position is distorted to an observer. However, the position of Polaris is subject to distortion of an unvarying amount.
10. Measuring the distance between Vega and Polaris should give different results depending on where in the sky Vega appears to be.
11. However, when measured, the distance between Vega and Polaris is
always the same.