No text, but a visual code

[ololololo]

Ultimately, it is a matter of knowing how to read medieval images. You either know how or you don't. I don't claim to know absolutely every detail we see in the Voynich, but I believe I can interpret the essentials. If I say that the roof of a tent—an image that recurs in the codex—represents the roof of the medieval universe (the sphere of the fixed stars), what surprises me is that I am the only one interpreting it this way, given that there are members of this forum well-qualified to see it as I do.

   
In the center is a T‑O map, surrounded by a blue cloud with stars inside it. Spirals emanate from the T‑O map.
Essentially, the most banal (but not necessarily true) explanation of this diagram is a description of geocentrism. At the center is the Earth, surrounded by a celestial sphere to which the stars are attached. The arms demonstrate the rotation of the celestial bodies around the Earth.
For a medieval person, it probably looked something like that.
To imagine this as some kind of lid from a pot, like on f75r, you need to have a vivid imagination...
And how, then, can you explain that the celestial “ceiling” is depicted in VMS in different ways? Is it really the case that the astrological section is for those who aren’t very smart, while Balneology is intended for the smartest of the smart? But such a discrepancy could be explained if scribe B wrote this section independently and “in isolation” from the other sections? I don’t know whether the theory of singularii allows for this, but still…

It is actually a representation of the medieval cosmos, and I have explained the reason for this on several occasions.

I know you’ve already explained this; I’ve read your posts  But an explanation alone is not enough. We also need to prove WHY I should consider this explanation appropriate.
For example, the most banal assumption about the Rosettes is that it is a map of some Italian region. This version is SUITABLE and LOGICAL, because we can associate it with balneology, where (in the context of the same theory about the periplus with a list of hot springs and lakes) the same geographical features or objects from the same region are depicted.
To refute this, you should not compare it with your own theory. You must show why this theory is contradictory or incorrect in itself. 
The usual explanation of one’s theory and attributing to oneself the ability to read VMS images proves nothing and refutes nothing.

Various hypotheses can be formulated to explain the Voynich, but you will agree with me that the more comprehensive a hypothesis is regarding all sections of the codex, the more well-founded, and closer to the truth, it will be. The goal is to build a coherent system comprising everything—all the images and the script—without discarding anything.

I agree with you! 
Overall, I actually have an opinion on most of VMS, except for anatomy and the numerical cipher; I just don’t have a place to express it, and besides, no one has asked me about it yet
But in your case, part of the VMS text theory, let’s say, is “silent.” You simply say that this is some kind of astronomical notation (as I understand it, something along the lines of a mathematical language, right?). But at the same time, I don’t understand how one could write an entire book using this method.
You don’t explain the text, you only describe the illustrations. Of course, I understand that you mean there’s a direct connection between the text and the images, but it would be better if you explained what that connection is.