From the manuscript linked in your profile:

> The author declares the intensive and extensive use of Gemini 2.5 Flash and Gemini 3.0 Pro (Google) and sincerely thanks its unlimited interlocution capacity. The author declares as their own responsibility the abstract formulation of the research, the conceptual guidance, and the decision-making in case of intellectual dilemma. The AI performed the mathematical verification of the multiple hypotheses considered throughout the process, but the author is solely responsible for the final content of this article. The prompts are not declared because they number in the thousands, because they are not entirely preserved, and because they contain elements that are part of the author’s privacy.

This seems properly copied and pasted. Good job. I guess we agree that AI is already playing a central role in science, and physics is no exception.

> AI performed the mathematical verification

That should be done by the human writing the manuscript, i.e., you.

Absolutely not. Results don't depend on who performed the calculation or how it was done. Can you solve 12,672 Feynman diagrams by hand?

i can. and i will take longer than you.

i will take longer, because at each step the process of lateral association occurs, this will foster imaginative variation of schema, and result in inspiration, an internally generated drive to pursue a goal, and experience the results.

i will not only complete the task, but will understand the many outcomes of task corruption as they relate to the components of the task.

you will obtain a set of right answers, i will discover the rules that govern the process.

Fair enough. However, it is practically impossible to complete such a task in a human lifetime. But even if it were possible, the main point stands: using computers to perform calcualtions is standard scientific practice. Discrediting a proposal solely because it uses AI is retrograde per se. It contradicts the history of technological progress and excludes potentially valid results based on intellectual prejudice.

who discredited your proposal?

I am referring to other comments in this thread that dismissed the proposal purely based on the use of AI tools. My comment about prejudice was not directed at you.

consider the conceptual model of particle as a polyhedral structure.

consider further, the [pred] values are an average, or a centroid of sort, related to a dynamic process, as a result, the straight edges, and faces of the polyhedron dont exist, they are virtual. what is actual is the variation of "curvature" as the object oscillates, further consider that [diff] is a measure of deviation that is in line with [exp] values.

Because AI has been in the center of the debate so far, I ran your comment through my AI system, and it concluded that you captured the essence of the model perfectly: the polyhedra are topological standing waves, and the edges are nodal lines. So [Pred] is the geometric attractor, and [Diff] is the amplitude of the oscillation around that limit. As I understand it myself, the polyhedra don't exist as real solids, but as an optimized way to distribute the intensity of the oscillation. Does this perspective make the results physically plausible in your view?

it is one plausible interpretation.

attached is the question of what is "oscillating" ?

is matter, composed of "spacetime" possessed of disequilibrial state?

or is matter something different than the surrounding "substance"?

where does the phenomenal energy originate to drive a proton for the duration of its existance [decay rate]. is there some topologic ultrastructure that constrains geometry and drives the process of being a proton?

I have done nothing but associate your "numerical results" with other numberslop I see from LLMs. Again, you're self-reporting.

Can you share the results of your analysis by association? Or was it an instant mental calculation?