Celestial theodolite measurements are a huge problem for the claimed rate of curvature, and these observations are the strongest evidence that is accessible for anyone to verify themselves.
Measurements and analysis by Dr. Mike Heffron.
"What’s Being Measured?
Observers at known elevations and coordinates are sighting distant peaks (like Pikes Peak, Blodgett Peak, Cheyenne Mountain, etc.).
They use the observed elevation angle (El) of the peak, as determined by the background star field, to calculate the apparent altitude of the distant peak.
This is compared to the expected altitude based on two models:
Flat Earth (FE): Simple trigonometry, no curvature drop.
Globe Earth (GE): Includes the "drop" due to earth’s curvature over the distance, plus (optionally) atmospheric refraction correction.
How Are the Results Presented?
Each observation yields a ΔAlt (Delta Altitude): the difference between the measured peak altitude and the expected value for each model.
The spreadsheet gives these as:
FE ΔAlt ATM off: Flat earth model, no atmospheric correction.
GE ΔAlt ATM off: Globe earth model, no atmospheric correction.
GE ΔAlt ATM on: Globe earth model, with atmospheric correction (using G.G. Bennett’s refraction formula).
Interpretation:
Flat Earth Model: The ΔAlt values are consistently close to zero, typically within ±1 meter, with small random scatter. This means the measured peak altitude matches the flat earth trigonometric prediction almost perfectly, within experimental error.
Globe Earth Model: The ΔAlt values are all large negative numbers, typically in the range of -100 to -200 meters. This means the measured peak altitude is much higher than the globe model predicts—it appears the distant peak is “too high” by over 100 meters, every time.
Atmospheric Refraction: The correction for standard refraction (using Bennett’s formula) is negligible compared to the discrepancy. The numbers with and without refraction are almost identical, so refraction cannot account for the difference.
What Does This Mean Physically?
Let’s use calculus and trigonometry to illustrate:
On a globe: The drop due to curvature over distance dd is Δh=d^2/2R, where R is the earth’s radius. For 50 km, that’s about 196 meters.
On a flat plane: No drop, so the only thing that matters is the observer’s and target’s elevations and the angle.
The data show that the observed peak altitudes match the flat calculation, not the globe calculation. The globe model predicts the peaks should be “hidden” or much lower, but they are not.
Conclusion: What Does the Data Falsify?
No evidence of curvature drop: The data do not show the predicted drop for a globe of radius 6371 km.
No evidence that atmospheric refraction “saves” the globe model: The correction is far too small.
Direct geometric measurement: The earth’s surface, as measured by these star-referenced long-distance sights, behaves as if it is flat and stationary over these scales.
The data in this spreadsheet show, over and over, that the measured altitudes of distant peaks match flat earth trigonometry and deviate dramatically from the predictions of the globe model. No amount of standard atmospheric refraction can account for the discrepancy. This is a direct, geometric, repeatable, and verifiable measurement—no curvature detected!1.
Physics is about measurement, and measurement is king! If the data do not fit the model, the model must be questioned. In this experiment, the globe model is not just off—it’s off by orders of magnitude compared to the measurement precision.
Thats a GG folks."
