It's one thing to back up science of an Earth physics model. It's entirely different to write that "Polar satellites" article in the sparse and loose way it was apparently thrown together to make sense of the NASA fantasy of "satellites". A disappointing direction. This is how I imagine it ...
There are a couple reasons people take that sharp turn. One is because they are legitimately duped by their own thoughts. Another is ...
EDIT: This is the response I tried to post. It is awaiting moderation.
I enjoy your writings on optical sciences, though some of them have been a bit hard to follow. But this one is a new level of vagueness and leaps of faith that I am not willing to make. This article is poorly written compared to your Earth model articles, and makes them look worse off too.
It reveals a bad habit of writing style that could be confused for deliberately dumbing down your audience by having them follow along using only base assumptions rather than good, solid, well-explained reasoning. If you do not go back and edit this article, you are bound to make Earth studies look like a propaganda attempt rather than an attempt to show the truth. I hope that is not your intent.
The pattern I am picking up on here is your tendency to create a huge theoretical direction based on just a few images, while ignoring outright the need to identify and vet the sources. Line drawings about curvature of light are one thing. It makes sense to use diagrams when it's about geometry and math and scientific models that anyone can confirm.
But so-called "photos" from creepy NASA halls? It doesn't compliment your technical intelligence when you are taking images of the PR/propaganda company like NASA for face value — or even more bizarrely — allowing yourself to be drawn into PR statements calculated to intrigue and deceive, while providing no solid information for the public to discern why or how their incredible claims have gone un-vetted — even by so-called skeptical thinkers like yourself.
These are not simple functions of nature you are analyzing anymore. They are claimed to be very complex machines, and you are just forcing them to be in your theory which by necessity makes you endorse official explanations — for what purpose?
Going back now and seeing your earlier articles is a bit tense now because you had been going slowly and methodically before. You explained each concept, leaving room for the theories to grow in the future. But this article abandons those.
With this article, you have practically created a huge hole (no pun intended) in your readers' potential cohesion of an already shaky theory. If people read this article first, they would conclude you don't actually do any research at all.
Why have you stopped doing research to this extent? Why?
Each one of those so-called satellite images you showed is suspect, and the quotes you've drawn up are nothing less than PR from a huge time- and money-wasting organization. How can you switch from skeptical inquiry of pure observation to endorsing the simulation to this extent? How can you not cite thoroughly each presumption you make about what you have (seemingly arbitrarily) chosen to trust from the self-contradictory Disney-NASA fantasies?
It doesn't make sense when you take NASA images and start speculating and pondering about the functions of photoshopped contraptions that have no proof of full functionality on Earth, let alone in "environments" like "outer space", which we couldn't describe and you have only begun to try to replace (and NASA can't even describe consistently with all their writers and spinners). It's like in the 9/11 drama, Judy Wood trying to read science "out of the pixels" while failing to credit her "burnt out car photos" to New York scam artist George Marengo.
Please, remember to build your theories on solid foundations.
If they have *some* satellites that "work", demonstrate in detail to us:
1. How you determined which satellite data fronts are "real" (Starting with why you thought they might be real in the first place)
2. Specific and clear diagram(s) of the model you are proposing (instead of slowly hinting of a possible hypothesis that we have to imagine)
3. How the so-called satellite images presented, when there are any images at all to be gleaned from a front site, are by necessity made by an advanced computer "in space" or ("on the glass" as you require) rather than simply constructed in an office.
4. Analysis of the launch and life cycle that must have been necessary for each
5. Analysis of each and every "satellite" model and its so-called parts (without relying on trust of NASA's descriptions) to indicate that the thing is actually going to function in a way that YOU predict rather than how NASA would have it. And, explain how it won't be fried, irradiated, shredded by debris, etc. (Including in your description at least the moving parts you think it has, and means of conveyance! A computer in a chunk of material and moving parts does not make it more than expensive make-believe)
There is so much missing, as I've explained above, if you wanted to just create the most basic form of the theory you are designing.
In the face of the incredible amount of lies and propaganda being pumped out of that organization to invent fake technologies, I am disappointed in and suspicious of your direction to basically endorse a bunch of NASA images of their satellites, while failing to provide evidence that the images and articles connected to and about them produce anything of value besides obfuscation of the truth.
Have you even been to the Modis web site and tried to make any sense of their so-called data? The place is a scientific-appearing front for the fact that they don't produce anything.
If you are going to pick some ideas from a mountain of lies and fantasy to just believe, or re-interpret or re-imagine, you've got to have a better explanation as to why you are allowing such make believe. And even then, it needs to fit better with your earlier speculations — which, now, sadly, by comparison, look weak and undeveloped compared to these claims, because it hints that you could write another article all together that is purely drawn from no evidence and that's the pattern we are facing.
Please, just make a warning on the top of this page, saying something like: "This is a theory in development and in serious need of detailed reasoning, which I am working on" and leave this article as a "stub" for people to read while you collect data that helps a skeptical person understand why you of all people trust the highly suspicious data that you do.
Otherwise, please explain your reasoning for crafting this article in such a loose and useless style compared to the measurable observations of previous articles. I hope for this site to be a consistent resource rather than a distraction. Please, though you are eager to have a Theory of Everything, stick to the slow and patient methods that are more convincing. Thank you!