The signals are received by being bounced off of a layer of moisture in the sky, that arcs from horizon to horizon (dipping slightly in the center). At and near the equator, the curve of this moisture means they must point straight up to avoid being scattered, while elsewhere there is less of a curve.
Too bad, per your sig, you don't believe in astronomy.
1) Dish angles point at geostationary satellites per installation software.
2) The S. Celestial Pole needs to be over a single point S.Pole that can not be found on a single-sided FE per the geometry of rotating objects.
3) All the stars below the S.Celestial Pole in star trail images are on the opposite side of the Earth 10,000+ behind the observers and yet everyone is facing due south looking at the "edge" - remarkable.
4) The Sun is seen due E/W on the equinox at sunrise/sunset when it is 1/4 of the Earth away NE/NW. Sometimes as people have noted, sunrise/sunset is seen south (SE/SW) of their locations. How does that happen exactly on a FE?
Yep, too bad. Your FE Fantasy is the lie. So you are somewhat correct.
My sig does not mention astronomy, it just mentions other facts that need to be taken into account.
This thread is about satellite dishes. Talk about satellite dishes, not star trails and the Sun. There are numerous threads where those issues are discussed, if you want to talk about stars go to a thread about stars, or start your own.
Dishes point where they've been told to point: certain points on the moisture layer which reflects the signals back down.
OK, I was trying to drag you kicking and screaming into reality. But no go... Sorry...
I did mention satellite dishes.
So if all these dishes are pointing and converging somewhere to get their signals, where is this spot? Can you show us using 3 points and dish angles, like the ones I provided (https://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=64682.msg1726741#msg1726741), where that spot is so we can check for a transmitter? ... or is this just fanciful BS?
Please refrain from such clearly meant-to-provoke language. You clearly know those arguments do not work: either you have made a thread on them and seen the responses, or you do not wish to see them rebutted in a location people can easily find. It is simple courtesy in a forum. I don't give the multiple experiments that have detected no curvature, or bring up the flaws in the physics supporting a round earth, when it is not relevant to the subject.
I responded to your mention of satellite dishes. I don't know why you're talking about signals converging on only one location, I didn't say that, I said the signals were reflected back to the ground to/from stations and towers. There are a lot of towers and facilities in the world.
I have noticed that you often seem to feel the need to state your opinion arrogantly. Such statements have no place in scientific discourse. If you are right, you should be able to prove it calmly. If you need to bluster, consider why. If you are simply frustrated I would suggest you find a different hobby, if this one is so unenjoyable for you.
No problem then - no convergence. As dish software tells installers where to point the dishes in the sky from ANYWHERE based on the longitude and latitude of the installation, please provide the location of some of these transmitters. I provided 3 locations and angles per the software. Please calculate where these transmitters are/would be so we can verify your claim.
Yep, there are many towers and facilities in the world. There are lots of trees in the world also. So what? Can you demonstrate any Dishes bouncing off the atmosphere at them or is this just mere hand-waving? (FE logic - there are horses in the world, animals fly, therefore there are flying horses)
In case you are wondering, in the installer software you specify which satellite you want the dish to point at. Based on your latitude and longitude, the software calculates the angles. The Dishes actually DO converge in the real world 42,000+ km above the center of the Earth. This is done for all the dishes out there. So against reality (the real world), what do you have to offer for your "maybe" scenario?
I will happily do so if you can provide one piece of information: given your dish, what angle is it at, and where is the tower or installation that receives its signal? From that I can calculate where all dishes at the same angle on that radius. Without that, it is not physically possible for me to answer that question.
Satellite signals reflect off moisture, and a moisture layer would develop between the heat of the Sun and the cool of the ground: there is a point where it goes from gas to liquid and back to gas. The variation I gave only follows from the shape of the caloric field, and the Sun's influence.
Dishes can be said to converge many ways. If you wanted you could point every dish on Earth towards a place that would be over the equator, but the signal would still bounce and return to a point on Earth. So long as a sufficient 'satellite' is there (it might be no bigger than a lamppost, the main installation could be elsewhere) the system will remain.
I ask you again to please leave behind the bluster. I understand you believe the world is round, but a conversation cannot be had if you try to drag me into your worldview without comprehending mine. If it makes you happy I will concede this aspect of your model could work. I don't believe that is true, but I have no desire to get into that discussion. Now, if your model can in theory work, and my model can in theory work, what is it you intend to do to sort between them?