Because orbit is, and was from its historical inception, fictional (As wild as i know that sounds/is). Roughly, it is because of the law of gravity - what goes up, must come down.
Balloon is likely not the only way to keep them aloft, at least hypothetically, but it is the most reasonable/likely considering that orbit does not exist (and the early history of satellites).
Imagine/consider it was true. You don’t think that would be wild?! I certainly did!
it sounds lacking in foundation
And you may continue to flatly presume that, or you could potentially ask a question or two / address the content in a substantive way.
and contrary to observations and reality
It is contrary to belief as to what causes those observations, but not the observations themselves.
You have been very straightforward, which i appreciate, that you are not interested in learning about the subject in any way - but you did ask a valid and reasonable question which in my estimation deserved an earnest response.
Of course, my response may differ greatly from the op’s, and it is certainly not nearly detailed enough to justify/support itself (that would be quite the feat in a sentence or two) alone - but it does have support if you are ever interested in exploring it further!
Remind us why aren't actual "non balloon" satellites aren't possible?
Because orbit is, and was from its historical inception, fictional (As wild as i know that sounds/is). Roughly, it is because of the law of gravity - what goes up, must come down.
Balloon is likely not the only way to keep them aloft, at least hypothetically, but it is the most reasonable/likely considering that orbit does not exist (and the early history of satellites).
It doesn't sound wild, it sounds lacking in foundation and contrary to observations and reality.
Imagine/consider it was true. You don’t think that would be wild?! I certainly did!
And you may continue to flatly presume that, or you could potentially ask a question or two / address the content in a substantive way.
It is contrary to belief as to what causes those observations, but not the observations themselves.
You have been very straightforward, which i appreciate, that you are not interested in learning about the subject in any way - but you did ask a valid and reasonable question which in my estimation deserved an earnest response.
Of course, my response may differ greatly from the op’s, and it is certainly not nearly detailed enough to justify/support itself (that would be quite the feat in a sentence or two) alone - but it does have support if you are ever interested in exploring it further!