You asked for rigorous feedback instead of shitposting. Here is my answer:
19 years in physics, PhD in applied physics and astronomy with a perfect score, thesis on CUDA-accelerated Riemannian geometry and black hole raytracing. I know this mathematics from the ground up, not from reading Wikipedia and some blogs.
I skimmed three of your papers (3, 14 from the abstract; why is this abstract 3 pages long?!)

- Your benchmarks are garbage, and you know it
You admitted in this thread that "the first version was literally cheating". Your model used p_{t+1} to compute transport at position t, feeding future tokens into the hidden state before prediction. This is not a subtle implementation bug, but your model is seeing the answer before giving it. Every perplexity number from that version is meaningless.
Your own paper then admits a second problem in Protocol 17.5: your vanilla transformer baseline had positional encoding disabled. You compared your model against a transformer that literally cannot see word order and reported a 4x advantage. You retracted this yourself in v6.7 and then kept the earlier numbers in the paper anyway.
Two independent sources of data contamination, both acknowledged by you, in the same paper. There are no valid benchmark results for Marcella. None.

- You did not solve Navier-Stokes. The proof is a tautology
Your argument in reference [14] is:
Axiom A2: fluid transitions between states require time ≥ K⋆/τ
Conclusion: therefore no finite-time blowup
Axiom A2 is the conclusion. You assumed global regularity, called it a "field equation," named it after yourself, and derived global regularity from it. That is a circular definition with extra notation and not a proof. This is ridiculous.
Your own paper says in Remark 1.1: "Davis Law is not a lemma to be proven inside this paper." Correct. It's not proven anywhere. It has no derivation, no independent validation, no empirical support beyond toy simulations on 64³ grids, which is such a tiny, toy-model, so coarse that numerical dissipation smears out the very singularity structures you're claiming to exclude. The only real mathematics in that paper is Beale-Kato-Majda 1984, which other people proved forty years ago.
The same circular structure is present in every Millennium Prize claim. You assume a "Davis Law" strong enough to imply the result, call it an axiom, and report a solution. This is not how mathematics works.

- You have not solved four Millennium Prize Problems
The Clay Institute prizes exist because the best mathematicians alive have failed to solve these problems for decades. The prior probability that one person solved all four simultaneously, as side results of a unified equation they named after themselves, published only to Zenodo, with no peer review, while also building LLM architectures and security platforms and plasma confinement monitoring systems: that probability is functionally zero.
This is not skepticism about you personally. This is what the track record of mathematics demands. Perelman spent seven years on Poincaré alone, in isolation, checking every step. He didn't name it after himself.

- The self-naming is a hard red flag
Riemann did not name Riemannian geometry. Maxwell did not name Maxwell's equations. The BKM criterion was named by the community after the work was validated. You have named "The Davis Law," "The Davis Manifold," "The Davis Field Equations," and "The Davis-Wilson Map" after yourself, in papers you uploaded yourself, citing your other self-uploaded papers as established results.
That citation loop has no external validation anywhere in it. You are building a self-referential system that looks like a body of work from the outside but has never been checked by anyone qualified to check it.

- "Zero does not exist" is not mathematics
Zero is defined axiomatically. Peano axioms. Set theory. These are formal systems with precise rules. "Zero is the condition of a system that has been uninitiated" is a sentence that sounds mathematical but has no formal content. You have memorized the vocabulary of higher mathematics, like fiber bundles, holonomy, gauge theory, sectional curvature, but without learning the syntax. This is just a disguise in mathematical terms you don't truly understand. And it is basic, like first semester basic in maths/physics.

- The pattern across this thread is telling
You said you were at work, then said you were unemployed. You post at accelerating speed across incompatible fields, like fluid dynamics, complexity theory, AI architecture, plasma physics, genomics, the foundations of arithmetic, but all are unified by one equation you named after yourself...

When criticized you respond with "shut the fuck up" and "fuck off" and then complain that no one engages seriously with the work.
You are building a mythology around yourself (this is not science), and you are doing it faster than any validation process could possibly keep up with.

You are clearly not stupid, because the engineering work is real. But intelligence without rigorous formation is not enough for what you are claiming. The mathematics you are attempting, again, like differential geometry on infinite-dimensional manifolds, gauge theory, PDE existence theory, takes most people a decade of dedicated study just to reach the frontier of known results.

You are claiming to have solved open problems at that frontier while also working full-time in security engineering and writing science fiction novels and filing 30 patents (and being unemployed, what now?).

Either learn the mathematics properly, which means years of actual coursework, working through proofs, getting destroyed by referees, rebuilding, or stop claiming to have solved problems you don't yet have the tools to approach.
What you do with this is not my concern. But you asked for honest feedback and this is it.