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.
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?
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?
the general takeaway is that the activity of protest fosters a community of common values, the "side" that looses cool and initiates violence is the outcrowd.
that seems to work until you encounter a "side" that begins systematicly exterminating.
a much more revelatory exercise would be to compare these derived values with measured values, then construct testable hypotheses regarding disparities.
The model shows that the surface and volume of an object scale with mass such that electrostatic and gravitational acceleration can be explained through this scaling relationship. This is considered a geometric or structural cost:
C_s ~ m^(1/3) + m^(-2/3)
In terms of intrinsic acceleration, surface and volume scale with mass as:
a_i ~ m^(1/3) + m^(-5/3)
This relationship holds for any object with charge ≠ 0 across electrostatic and gravitational regimes, so the free fall principle is strictly recovered only for mathematically neutral objects.
This allows drawing an intrinsic acceleration curve for objects with homogeneous density, and the minimum point of this curve is identified at:
m_ϕ ≈ 4.157 × 10^−9 kg
If the surface and volume of a not strictly neutral object determine its dynamic behavior, this would theoretically allow measuring m_ϕ with precision and deriving G without the historical dependence on the Planck mass. In this sense, it is a falsifiable proposal.
The geometric logic of the model allows establishing a geometric or informational saturation limit that eliminates GR singularities. At the same time, fundamental particles are not treated as dimensionless points but as polyhedral objects, which also eliminates the quantum gravity problem. The concept of infinity is considered, within the model, physically implausible.
From here, the model allows making the derivations included in this post, which I have not presented categorically, but as a proposal that seems at least statistically very unlikely to be achieved by chance.
The model does not question the precision of the Standard Model but postulates that the particle zoo represents not a collection of fundamental building blocks, but the result of proton fragmentation into purely geometric entities. The fact that these entities are not observed spontaneously in nature, but only as a consequence of forced interactions, seems to support this idea.
to lose the features that define it as a subunit of tissue.
in this case warts, or tumour cells may be transplanted during surgery, to a person that has nicked themselves with a scalpel or other such instrument, it is not impossible for a technician to have this happen while preparing a biopsy.
the way a virus promotes cancer is by inserting, into genetic locus [address] that is close enough to the start of an "oncogene" that cancer results.
Diagnostic dilemma: A surgeon accidentally transplanted a tumor into his
own hand
you seem to be entirely missing the point, you are in a frame expecting posts to conform to a ridgid set of definitions, this post has a purpose outside of that frame, as a little bird might tell you.
https://www.chop.edu/news/worlds-first-patient-treated-perso...
reply