I'm going to steelman your argument and assume a few things:
- You are a real person who genuinely wants to make a difference in the field of physics
- The proposed mathematics isn't technobabble and actually does generate the constants you say it does
- The contributions are overwhelmingly yours, not overwhelmingly AI-generated
Even under these generous assumptions, this just isn't how citizen science is done. Your first step isn't publishing a 2-page paper with no references and basically no details on what you're doing or why. Your first step is taking your results to the nearest PHd theoretical physicist you can find, and getting them to take you seriously so you can find out if your work actually has merit.
Thanks but your critique doesn't change the science of it, run the math, confirm or deny, move on... simple equation really. If people want to argue with the science of it, be my guest and ill see you on the other side.
Go do the math, then come back and deny it with the actual proof. I've delivered my half, and you may not like it but this is indeed how citizen science is done, as we can see here^. You can take it to a scientist or mathematician/topologist if you like, I'm all about that.
- "Man who says it can not be done, should not interrupt man who is doing it."
- You are a real person who genuinely wants to make a difference in the field of physics
- The proposed mathematics isn't technobabble and actually does generate the constants you say it does
- The contributions are overwhelmingly yours, not overwhelmingly AI-generated
Even under these generous assumptions, this just isn't how citizen science is done. Your first step isn't publishing a 2-page paper with no references and basically no details on what you're doing or why. Your first step is taking your results to the nearest PHd theoretical physicist you can find, and getting them to take you seriously so you can find out if your work actually has merit.