> While these concepts are intriguing, the paper seems to lack the rigorous mathematical formulations and empirical evidence that would be required to take thes

> While these concepts are intriguing, the paper seems to lack the rigorous mathematical formulations and empirical evidence that would be required to take these ideas from the realm of speculation into the realm of accepted physical theory. I agree with the LLM, here, though calling them intriguing seems to me... generous. There are good reasons that the ideas of ether or aether, a static background for the universe, have been dismissed. General Relativity tells us there is no static background, and experiments confirm there is no background bias. That the ancients knew and encoded electric antenna and circuit designs into floor patterns and cities seems more coincidence to me. That there good have been some knowledge on the part of the artist in geometry seems reasonable. That such an artist took joy in expressing an abstract consistency in the geometry he or she found also seems reasonable. That these were expressions of some secret knowledge of advanced physics concepts humanity has lost seems a lot less reasonable.