One other point regarding the experimental side of Mill's theories. One of his validations regards solar and cosmic background UV radiation which he claims comes from hydrino transitions. This is detailed in Peter Janssen's masters thesis at Rowan University (citation is
Jansson, Peter Mark, "Hydrocatalysis: a new energy paradigm for the 21st century" (1997). Theses and Dissertations. 2077.
Janssen presents a table showing a very close match between Mill's predicted hydrino lines and those measured by Labov and Boyer (
'Spectral Observations of the Extreme Ulfraviolet Backgronnd, The Astrophysical Journal, 371:810-819 © 20 April 1991, The American Astronomical Society)
Now here is the table from Janssen's thesis:
Here is the raw cosmic EUV data from Labov and Boyer:
and here is the table from Labov and Boyer after processing their data, where they show the peaks that they felt sure were statistically significant:
The connection seems to me less than convincing. The strong line is a normal Helium line from scattered solar radiation, according to the Labov and Boyer paper. For the others they give tentative explanations which have nothing to do with hydrinos.
The thing is, whether in space or in a laboratory plasma, with a lot of highly ionized things with higher Z than Carbon, there is going to be all sorts of UV in that kind of range. It seems to me that you would need something pretty exact and with no other reasonable possible source before you start claiming it is from a completely unknown form of hydrogen, which for some mysterious reason cannot be formed without adding all those other high-Z materials.
I am getting the picture that Mills has been supporting this theory for over 20 years and still has very gotten very little interest among the wider physics community. My feeling is that if he really believes in what he is saying, he needs to interact more, rather than amassing a bunch of "validations" that are less than convincing when one actually reads them. He should discuss his GUT-CP with people that are really familiar with quantum mechanics, who can work together with him to see what is right and what is wrong in what he has done.
Science is really not a subject for one person who has all the answers and has "proved" that everyone else is wrong. Let me take Mr. Wyttenbach's analogy, where he speaks of the "church" of quantum mechanics. To be honest, I have nothing against churches. Often they are places for very fruitful discussion and learning. But there can be a problem with a church that has one great leader who has the answers to all the different subjects and knows that all the others are wrong. Churches like that are normally called by names like "sect" or "cult" and not a lot of good comes out of them. (Not speaking directly of Dr. Mills, of course, just suggesting a more interactive way of doing stuff).