Validation of Randell Mills GUTCP - a call for action

Quote from Rical

The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics (GUT-CP) predicts masses of particuls, energy and shape of any particuls and molecules until ADN, and their interativity in a precision of 1 for 1000.
http://brilliantlightpower.com…resentationPt1-072516.pdf

An excellent presentation of the GUT-CP theory was presented at MASEY UNIVERSITY.
With a comparison with quantum theory. In short :
1 constant without dimension replace 27 "fondamental" constants.
3 forces only based on impulsions, versus QM "magic" intercations based on random hapening.
http://webcast.massey.ac.nz/Me…6fc458b8eb7f351738f26811d

Display More

the 27 "constants" of quantum theory are called "postulates". they're basically "total guesses" or more accurately, "Numbers With Zero Explanation That Happen To Make It All Work And We Are Really Really Hoping Nobody Will Notice Or Question Us About It".

interestingly, Dr Randall Mills' theoretical work is accurate to current experimental uncertainty (electron in particular) to a staggering 10 (TEN) decimal places. with ZERO POSTULATION! zero magic constants! that's a staggering achievement!

it is only as the complexity gets greater that the accuracy reduces to around 1e-5 and later, at extremely large atomic numbers and electron shell densities, 1e-3.

Quote from Wyttenbach

As many might know by now, Mills theory based on rigorous Maxwell equations, is able to more exactly describe nature, than we could any time before.

... whereas the Standard Model is based around Yang-Mills, which is in turn as i understand it a "moving" of Maxwell's Equations to QM aka "The Frequency Domain".

so in theory it should be perfectly possible to translate between the two, right? surely, both Models are based on Maxwell's Equations, therefore it should *surely* be possible to translate from one to the other or show *some* sort of connection, no matter how tenuous, right?

unfortunately, from what I understand of FFTs - someone please correct me if this is wrong - it is not possible to express DC (constants) in an FFT. there *is* no "frequency" associated with an *unchanging* value. just like if you differentiate and then immediately integrate you have lost the constant and need to reintroduce it somehow.

this is, i believe, fundamentally why Dr Randall Mill's approach has been successful where QM has failed. Dr Randall Mills *does* actually move things into the frequency domain: he does so through the *explicit* application of 3D Fourier Transforms *where needed*.

i suspect - but cannot prove as i am not a mathematician - that the move through QM to the Frequency Domain is probably what has made it flat-out impossible to even notice the critical importance of the non-radiating boundary condition in the first place. there are other mistakes that Dr Mills notes in the equations being used by people working with the Standard Model: early in one of the papers he dedicates... i think it's the Schroedinger Equation... he dedicates quite some time to *proving* that some famous and commonly-used equation is provably inaccurate (violates a non-radiating boundary condition) when v approaches c.

bottom line is, anyone dealing with Dr Mill's work and expanding it is going to have a hell of a tough time convincing the FUNDED standard scientific community that the approach is valid, because it rocks the entire foundation on which they, as a community, are all currently receiving grant money. whoopsie...

Quote from Wyttenbach

I guess this was just a Mills speculation looking at a possible higher order resonance. The cornerstone of his metric & theory are the mass ratio's of the Leptons, with a more than 6 digits precision, which is unattained by any other theory.

I personally believe that there is a more general theoretical model for the nucleus, than Mills simplified calculus. Mills math only works for "single uniform" particles, not for any higher nucleus with a charge > 1! But his math should be enough to calculate base values for all particles seen at CERN.

i have speculated about the former mistake (the slowly increasing error-bars) after observing a mathematical trick by Jay Yablon. Jay, instead of doing 1 + Electrically-based-thing + Magnetically-based-thing + E.M-based-thing did this: (1 + E-based-thing) ( 1 + M-based-thing ) ( 1 + someotherenergy-based-thing).

now, i *suspect* that Dr Mills has made a similar mistake, missing out the absolutely critical 3rd term, which is very very small for small particles but becomes significant later.

the second mistake that prevents and prohibits turning Dr Mill's work into a general theoretical model for particles i outlned in a separate post, and it's the mistake of assuming that the quarks are equidistantly spaced at 120 degrees. you can see the mistake clearly in one of the diagrams of the proton. following various papers on Jones Matrices superposition and on "Mobius Light" superposition from 2008 that were experimentally demonstrated around 2015/2016, i surmise that the correct angles are 90 degrees not 120 and spent some time proving to my satisfaction within my limited mathematical ability that this was at least reason-able. http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0131

i would love to find people willing to spend the time working out the BECV equations for the up and down quarks (based on the ones for the electron and neutrino), and then seeing if superposition actually results in a stable equation. if it does then that would be absolutely amazing.

Quote from Deleo

Maybe solar, batteries and electric cars are the answer. Time will tell. Musk is world famous and worth $10 billion. So he must be on to something.

again, applying a black-box reverse-engineering skill-set to the words and actions that Elon Musk takes: Elon Musk is relying on people not noticing two very important things:

(1) that he's given up on humanity. he clearly firmly believes that humanity is going to kill itself and that we should get to Mars as quickly as possible as a way for the human race to survive.

(2) the corollary to that is: precisely *because* his primary focus is getting humanity off-planet, he does not care if people do not notice that his schemes require beyond the earth's planetary resources to actually be successful at a mass-volume production level. there is NOT ENOUGH copper, neodymium, lithium on the planet to give everyone an electric car, and current Solar Panels are so inefficient that the energy they produce is not recovered - ever - from their actual manufacture. Solar Panels are Carbon *HOSTILE*, not Carbon Neutral.

if you believe that electric vehicles are a good idea, please bash your head against the wall until you manage to disabuse yourself of the notion. failing that, please google "Lake Baotao" and also please look up how much boiling sulphuric acid it requires to refine 1kg of neodymium (it's about 1,000 litres) and also look up where neodymium is found (in highly radioactive deposits). then look up the photos of various black market neodymium mining operations in say... china... and ask yourself, do you think that chinese mafia, who are quite happy to substitute CEMENT into "milk powder products", poisoning their OWN citizens and killing some of them, are going to care about the environmental impact of dumping radioactive waste and boiling sulphuric acid into local rivers?

i cannot emphasise enough how critical it is that work such as the LENR and other similar research endeavours are to the sustainability of the human pace of technological development.

Quote from lkcl

current Solar Panels are so inefficient that the energy they produce is not recovered - ever - from their actual manufacture. Solar Panels are Carbon *HOSTILE*, not Carbon Neutral.

https://www.economist.com/news…wer-how-clean-solar-power

Interesting stuff Re. neodymium mining though... There seems to be some argument made that only China is prepared to take the enviromental hit, hence why they dominate exports.

Quote from Shane D.

Ikcl,

I agree with you that Mills academic credentials, prior inventions, and business success, do not match the profile of a scam artist such as Rossi. Hard also to con people when you have an accomplished BODs, and a science team looking over your shoulder as he does.

You will probably get some engagement here for the science part, but you could also talk with him directly on Yahoo:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/g…cs/conversations/messages

He does answer questions. Welcome to LF.

Display More

thanks shane that's really appreciated.

unfortunately.... if you check the group archives from around... i think it was nov 2016... you will see that last year i did in fact join the yahoo group. what you *won't* see is that the Moderator - a retired physics professor - quite blatantly told me in an extremely aggressive fashion that my posts were of a worse quality than the 15-year-olds he used to teach.

when i told him that i was quoting from memory from over a year ago (chemical memory not electrical memory, if you are familiar with brain chemistry you'll know what effect that has), was cut off from my research notes as i was in Shenzhen at the time when that DDOS IoT botnet attack was in full swing and my VPN access to the UK was down EIGHTY percent packet loss and maxed out at around 10 to 15 k per second transfer speed (5 minutes to load gmail... in *basic* HTML mode!), his responses, far from becoming accommodating and understanding of the circumstances, became even ruder and even more aggressive.

in the end i decided that he was just going to remain a complete d*** and that i was wasting my time dealing with - or through - him. thus i am prevented and prohibited from communicating with dr mills in the manner in which you kindly and thoughtfully suggested.

if that situation has changed, i would love to know. if you happen to be *permitted* to speak on that forum i would be interested to hear his reaction to the fact that the person he is entrusting moderation to is acting instead as a blatant fascist censor. you... may have some difficulty in drawing dr mill's attention to this post, however, as the person acting *as* fascist censor (if they are indeed still in that position) will see your message before Dr Mills even gets a chance to see it....

... oopsie

Quote from Zeus46

https://www.economist.com/news…wer-how-clean-solar-power

Interesting stuff Re. neodymium mining though... There seems to be some argument made that only China is prepared to take the enviromental hit, hence why they dominate exports.

they have difficulty regulating the black market, and it's areas of the country that are far enough even from Chinese eyes...

good find about the solar panel assessment. the thing about silicon (and a solar panel is silicon) is, the doping is *incredibly* toxic. we're talking heavy metals after all, and the volumes of pure water required are.... just... they're staggering. where does the waste water go, do you think? with concentrations of non-reactive heavy metals measured in parts per billion... it doesn't just go into the toxic mushrooms that end up in chinese medicine stores across the world, now, does it?

we really do have a bit of an environmental problem being caused by our thirst for technology.... am i allowed to make drastic understatements like that on here?

so please, guys and gals, i'm not going to ask this again: *please stop fighting*. open your minds. stop saying "this theory is bulls*** and i'm not even going to read it because my mind is closed against scientific enquiry". we *haven't got time for that*, okay? we need to rigorously and urgently explore every theory on energy sources that could possibly stand a chance of digging ourselves out of an urgent, urgent oncoming train-wreck ok?

Mills is even more obviously bocus than Rossi. Why? Because he wrote a book about his "theory". Of course, if you are illiterate with basic physics, you can be distracted.

Mills knows this, and it is enough for him to distract the illiterate.

bogus

Important and interesting points from a  Kazimierz Mroz answer on Quora discussing Mills theory and Heisenberg uncertainty principle

...

Herman Haus went back to first principles of Maxwell’s electro-magnetic formulas, Einsteins Special Relativity, the Stern-Gerlach experiment among several classical physics based tools, and redid Goedeke’s work regarding radiation in a new way. Haus found that radiation consisted of Fourier components of charge currents. No waves involved. This he was able to use to develop into a real world working model of the electron and from there was able to finish developing the free electron laser into a working device.

...

This all could have been considered a one time wonder, if not for the further work along similar lines by one of Haus’ students, Randell Mills. Mills did the exact same work for developing the model of the electron, took that work to Haus for evaluation and got Haus’ evaluation that the work was all correct.

Quote from lkcl

hi, my understanding comes from being a reverse-engineer, which is my primary area of expertise that i have been applying for 31 years to develop a particle physics theory (the extended rishon model) and also to understand Dr Mill's motivation. Dr Mill's early career is in NMR (Nuclear Magnetic Resonance). he pioneered many absolutely ground-breaking techniques that hugely improved the accuracy of NMR scans, and his work in this field is extremely well-recognised.

...

Other interesting posts of Kazimierz Mroz on Mills Theory

https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-best-physics-encyclopedias-for-a-layman/answer/Kazimierz-Mroz

https://www.quora.com/What-cri…dge/answer/Kazimierz-Mroz

http://e-catworld.com/2017/12/…imist/#comment-3683702394

"So Haus decided to redo the model of the electron from first principles, as an attempt to find a way of getting the development of the laser started. He used Maxwell’s formulas in electro-dynamics, Einsteins relativity, the Stern-Gerlach experiment as some of the main resources towards that goal. He was able to tie the parameters of the electron together in a way that produces a model that could be used to do the work required. This model was purely classical and had real world features or physical parameters that he was able use and finish the development of the laser into a working device."

"After the first device, the Free Electron Laser, to be made with the use of the precursor of the GUT-CP, the second item, the “Millsian®”, is a molecular modeler that is at least two orders of accuracy in power, accuracy, speed and ease of use, greater then any other similar apps based on Quantum Wave Mechanics. is currently in use by over 5000 since 2012. It is free for download and trial use:

Millsian Software"

Quote from gio06

Important and interesting points from a  Kazimierz Mroz answer on Quora discussing Mills theory and Heisenberg uncertainty principle

...

Herman Haus went back to first principles of Maxwell’s electro-magnetic formulas, Einsteins Special Relativity, the Stern-Gerlach experiment among several classical physics based tools, and redid Goedeke’s work regarding radiation in a new way. Haus found that radiation consisted of Fourier components of charge currents. No waves involved. This he was able to use to develop into a real world working model of the electron and from there was able to finish developing the free electron laser into a working device.

...

This all could have been considered a one time wonder, if not for the further work along similar lines by one of Haus’ students, Randell Mills. Mills did the exact same work for developing the model of the electron, took that work to Haus for evaluation and got Haus’ evaluation that the work was all correct.

now _that_ is _fascinating_. and also a really really vital piece of information. his wikipedia page is... brief. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermann_A._Haus so thank you for sharing this, gio06, it's really appreciated.

stefan, apologies, i can't find the exact quote, but you were mentioning that you were having difficulty understanding the "relativity change of perspective" at the end of chapter 1, page 113 of the 2016 GUTCP book.

i found this:

https://www.physics.uci.edu/~t…ChargedSphereElectron.pdf

which interestingly mentions similar mathematicians (heaviside) and has the advantage that it's deliberately written not as a "proof" but as an "educational discourse" with historical references.

does that help at all?

Quote from lkcl

stefan, apologies, i can't find the exact quote, but you were mentioning that you were having difficulty understanding the "relativity change of perspective" at the end of chapter 1, page 113 of the 2016 GUTCP book.

i found this:

https://www.physics.uci.edu/~t…ChargedSphereElectron.pdf

which interestingly mentions similar mathematicians (heaviside) and has the advantage that it's deliberately written not as a "proof" but as an "educational discourse" with historical references.

does that help at all?

Display More

I suspect that one could use this observation transform as a base to deduce those relatoins that Mills is applying