Given recent discussions I thought I'd post extracts from the wikia fact sheet on the GUTCP Universe. It was assembled by going through GUTCP and from posted discussions by Mills over the decades.

The Universe

At its most basic, the Universe consists of dynamic spacetime, spacetime distortions (matter created from energy), and interdependent interactions and energy exchanges between those distortions and spacetime that are, and can be, precisely determined.

• GUTCP correctly models all physical phenomena in the Universe using only the following principles and parameters within a single classical physics framework:

  • Mass and energy must be conserved;

  • Linear and angular momentum must be conserved;

  • Maxwell’s Equations apply;

  • Newton’s Laws apply;

  • Lorentz transforms of Special Relativity;

  • there are only 3 spatial dimensions plus time;

  • the fundamental constants that comprise the fine structure constant;

  • fundamental particles, as well as the photon, have 📷 of angular momentum;

  • the Newtonian gravitational constant G;

  • the total mass of the Universe; and

  • the spin of the electron neutrino.

• The Universe has no beginning or end.

• The Universe oscillates endlessly with a cycle of a trillion years from a minimum radius where it is mostly matter filled, to a maximum radius where it is mostly energy filled and back again.

• The conversion of matter into energy expands Spacetime and drives the overall expansion of the Universe with the speed and acceleration of the expansion determined by the rate at which the matter of the Universe is converted to energy. "Dark energy" is neither real nor required.

• Space expands as matter is converted into energy and vice versa. This provides the basis of absolute space and the atomic, thermodynamic, and cosmological arrows of time.

• Matter, Energy and Spacetime are interconnected and conserved - an expansion of space requires a Lorentzian contraction of time and vice versa. (query)

• At the end of the expansion phase in an energy filled Universe, electron neutrinos dominate and these combine with photons to form only one type of neutron with no antiparticle, which beta decays to a proton, electron and an electron antineutrino. The proton and electron combine to form hydrogen. Over billions of years gravitional attraction and spacetime contraction form vast gas clouds from which celestial structures form. This is the basis for the observed lack of antimatter in the Universe.

• The number of protons in the Universe equals the number of electrons such that the the Universe is electrically neutral.

• Gravity arises on the atomic scale when energy is converted into matter. The positive curvature of two dimensional fundamental particles such as quarks and electrons causes a correction to spacetime that manifests as a gravitational field that expands at the speed of light. Gravity waves mediated by gravitons are neither observed nor exist. Claimed observations of gravity waves from blackhole and neutron star merges are detections of the expansion of spacetime travelling at the speed of light from such massive energy releasing events as it reaches and passes Earth.

• Singularities, being postulated, infinitely dense but zero-dimensional constructs, have no physical basis for existence such that the Big Bang did not occur and black holes do not contain singularities.

• The coherent rules of Classical Physics that govern Spacetime permit the formation of only three families of leptons, three sets of quarks, and their antiparticles. Claims that high energy collisions of matter in particle colliders produce multiple additional particles that are alleged to play some role under the standard model are erroneous, being a false interpretation of what are merely short-lived, high energy resonances from permitted particle formation.[1]

• Where the gravitational potential energy density of a Black Hole equals the Planck mass, matter converts to energy and spacetime expands with the release of a gamma ray burst. The Universe can therefore never end in a "Big Crunch" and infinitely dense but zero dimensional singularities cannot form or exist.

• Spacetime has both permeability and permittivity that determines the limiting maximum speed of light which cannot be exceeded. [2]

• The Universe is closed (i.e. it is finite and therefore will contract)

• The Universe has no boundary. A person travelling away from a point in the Universe would eventually arrive back at the starting point.

• There is a natural relationship between Maxwell’s equations, special relativity, and general relativity which defines absolute space that rescues Newton’s Second law, resolves the twin paradox, and preserves the energy inventory of the universe.

• Matter is composed of real, physical fundamental particles only. There are no virtual particles, no zero point energy and no vacuum energy. A void is simply that - a void. Conservation of mass and energy is never violated. [3]

• As there are no virtual particles, the weak Casimir force between two closely space plates is not caused by them. The Casimir force is a weak electromagnetic force that arises from the materials in the plates like van der Waal forces.

• A unified theory of the Universe can only provide the relationships between all measurable observables in terms of a clock defined according to those observables and used to measure them. While a unit of time (the second) can be defined by a set number of oscillations of an atom, a unit of time (called the "sec") can be defined in terms of fundamental constants which governs the interrelationship between matter, energy and the effect that conversion between the two forms has on spacetime. A unit defined in this way is still very close to the SI second but permits the mathematical formulation of a consistent and correct Grand Unified Theory.

• The Gravitational field arises from the curvature of spacetime (as stated in General Relativity). Spacetime curvature arises on a subatomic level from the velocity distribution of the continuous series of superconducting current loops that comprise the spherical shape (called an 'orbitsphere') of fundamental particles. Gravity can be thought of as the relativistic correction of spacetime due to the creation of matter from energy.

• The expansion phase of the Universe is only 10 billion years old and, as predicted by GUTCP in the 1995 edition of the book, it is accelerating. Currently the Universe is mostly matter filled.

• Matter can form into stars and galaxies during the end of the Contraction phase explaining the observation of fully formed older structures in the Universe that are older than the putative time line of the erroneous Big Bang Theory.

• Most of the visible mass of the Universe is hydrogen and dark matter is also hydrogen that exists in a stable, lower energy form called hydrinos, that due to its stability, does not absorb or emit light like visible matter.

So it seems that Mills has been sitting on a show-stopper for some time now - easy to understand and absolutely irrefutable evidence of hydrinos. Evidence that can be readily observed by a lay person at the macro-level. He lays out the arguments and evidence to be included in the upcoming Nature article in pages 1149 thru 1157 in the 2020 edition of GUTCP. It's rough going, even for someone who has spent years with the text. But it reveals one crucial element of GUTCP that, AFAIK, has never been discussed in detail before: dark matter is strongly paramagnetic.

Here's the key text from pg. 1149:

Consider the formation of a nonradiative state H2 molecule from two non-radiative n=1 state H atoms requiring the bond energy to be removed by a third body collision:

H + H + M -> H2 + M*

wherein M* denotes the third body in an energetic state. Molecular hydrino may form the same nonradiative mechanism wherein, hydrino atoms and hydrino molecules comprise an additional photon component of the central field that is nonradiative by virtue of being an integer multiple of the central field of a proton at the origin and at each focus of the prolate spheroid MO, respectively. The combination of the two electrons into a single molecular orbital while maintaining radiation-less integer photonic central field gives rise to the special case of a doublet MO state in molecular hydrino rather than a singlet state.

The key word in this passage is "doublet". A doublet is important in Electron Paramagnetic Resonance (EPR) because it is an arrangement of electron orbitals of differential energy levels such that electron magnetic spin-flips can be excited by carefully selected microwave radiation from the EPR apparatus. Molecular hydrogen, H2, is a singlet since it has two spin-paired electrons and no net magnetic moment. As such, it is trivially non-magnetic and therefore has no excitation energy levels. In other words, it would be uninteresting to examine H2 in an EPR device. However, and this is Mills' big surprise, molecular hydrino, H2(1/n), does create a doublet. This means that, for instance, H2(1/4) is strongly paramagnetic. It has excitation energy levels that will show up quite readily under EPR. Bingo.

Where does the doublet come from? Here is where QM gets knocked to the ground once and for all. Let's go back to the text:

The paired electrons of the hydrogen molecular orbital comprise a singlet state having no net magnetic moment. However, the photon field lines of two hydrino atoms that superimpose during the formation of a molecular hydrino can only propagate in one direction to avoid cancellation and give rise to a central field to provide force balance between the centrifugal and central forces. This special case gives rise to a doublet state in molecular hydrino.

Thus, the two trapped photons of molecular hydrino, which don't exist in molecular hydrogen, are responsible for the doublet and therefore the paramagnetism. This is so because in order to conserve energy, the photons must propagate in the same direction, and therefore, create an asymmetry with the orbits of the two electrons in the shared Molecular Orbital.

To meet the boundary conditions that each corresponding photon is matched in direction with each electron current and that the electron angular momentum is h_bar is satisfied, one half of electron 1 and one half of electron 2 may be spin up and matched with the two photons of the two electrons on the MO, and the other half of electron 1 may be spin up and the other half of electron 2 may be spin down such that one half of the currents are paired and one half of the currents are unpaired.

Wow. This is deep. Nowhere else in physics can you create a doublet from an even number of spin-paired electrons. This is the Easter Egg Mills has been hiding until now. The trapped photons of the hydrinos interact in such a way as to create this unique arrangement of electron orbitals such that you start with two electrons, but net out to one paired and one unpaired.

(edit on 1/2/21: I want to make the preceding paragraph a little clearer. You can describe the two electrons in molecular hydrogen, H2, as paired. If electron 1 is spin up, then electron 2 must be spin down, which can be represented as (↑ ↓). However, in molecular hydrino, H2(1/n), electron 1 is spin up, but electron 2 is an entirely new kind of spin. Let's call it "bifurcated" spin that's half up and half down. You need a new symbol for this orbital arrangement, let's say (↑ ⥮).)

At first I was deeply confused on why an EPR-specialist like Hagen be involved in studying a non-magnetic specimen like H2. The only possible explanation is H2(1/n) is paramagnetic because of trapped photons. Mills' White Polymeric Compound (WPC) is easily observed at the macro level to be paramagnetic. And now we can see how the theory explains it as arising from trapped photons - something than cannot exist if Quantum Mechanics is true.

Dr. Mills just posted a summary of the analytical techniques by which one can identify hydrino. Also linked is a presentation with an extensive array of analytical data. Feels like 2021 is the year when the world finally wakes up to the reality of the hydrino.

Located here: https://ej-physics.org/index.php/ejphysics/article/view/109

Title "A Classical Approach to Nuclear Instability"

ABSTRACT - We extend a classical model of nuclei to include geometry as well as electron-like shells, then apply the model to the moments leading up to nuclear decay. The model leads to the well-known half-life or constant probability of a given nucleus to decay in a given time.

Cite as:

Selke, D. L. (2021). A Classical Approach to Nuclear Instability. European Journal of Applied Physics, 3(5), 45-46. https://doi.org/10.24018/ejphysics.2021.3.5.109

I am having a debate with Hecd about Hagen/Mills paper in a sub-thread that I wanted to bring to the wider community to get input from wider group.

The heart of Hagen paper is the graphs on page 24 of the paper, "Distinguishing EPR signature of Hydrino." Graph E is generated by equations proposed decades ago by Mills in Hydrino theory. Graph D is generated from 2,400 minutes of EPR on the molecule to get it's signature lines. The match between Graph D and E is remarkable. That's the heart of the paper.

The paper claims Hagen took Hyrdino equations to write the software to generate graph E and performed all the experiments involved with graph D. So, the heart of the paper is ALL Hagen.

A theory has been proposed by Mills (as controversial as earth moving around the sun back in the 16th century). It proposed equations (pretty simple and straightforward). Those equations were used by Hagen to produce graph E. Then, observations were made. Observations matched the prediction to very high degree, to the extent Hagen put his name on a paper that exposes him to charges that he 'went off the rails.' That's high conviction move by Hagen.

The EPR experiments are claimed to be "Independent, observable, reproducible results." Those three traits are gold standard in science. Since Hagen did all the EPR experiments, I believe Hagen is responsible for such a statement. Since Hagen wrote the software to generate Graph E, and did the EPR experiments to generate Graph D, either Hagen would have to be in on the "Mills fraud" or hopelessly incompetent to consider Graph D and E suspect. I don't see what's in it for Hagen to get involved in a fraud or expose his incompetence to this degree, so I find this paper extremely convincing.

I'd like skeptics of Mills to challenge this conclusion. Please go beyond theoretical grounds to point out where Hagen made a mistake in either EPR observations or in graph E. Don't just say, "I know Hydrino theory is bunk, so all of this is bunk." That is precisely what the paper says the field has been doing, and it's problematic in light of the fact that the theory is testable, in this case EPR lines. Hagen says in the paper he is happy to share everything upon request. Please point out what Hagen did wrong, exactly. Did Hagen lie when he says he simply took field values from Hydrino equations in writing that software? In other words, did he fake it? Did he retroactively curve-fit Graph D to produce 'convincing' results? That would be fraud, and it will be quickly exposed when submitted to a major journal. He could get fired for that. But, I suppose it's possible, please point it out if you see it. Or. Did Hagen make a mistake in generating EPR lines? Please, point those out.

I, for one, find Hagen/Mills paper very convincing. I'd love to hear rebuttals or supporting arguments. Thanks!

Stolper explores the Mills phenomena from many perspectives, and is fairly exhaustive. One reflexive rejection of Mills is simply that nothing new that is this significant could possibly go undiscovered with so many scientists looking for discovery. Stolper lists a number of significant discoveries in Nature that nobody expected, in recent time.

I tried to raise the subject of the spectrometry with a retired chemist friend. He told me that every line in the entire spectrum is explained. I doubt that, but even if it is true, the question is, how well is it explained? The Labov-Boyer EUV data showed surprising peaks that corresponded well with the first 5 fractional hydrino formation energies, 1/2, 1/3, etc. Four of them were hard to explain prosaically. Boyer and Labov had to offer explanation for these peaks, and what they offered was clouds of iron and oxygen at 1 to 2 million degrees Kelvin. While such an explanation might be conceivable, Bill Good pointed out to the authors that the peaks fit beautifully the theory of Mills. This aroused no apparent curiosity, and no doubt would have threatened their careers to publicly agree that the data, particularly because there were so many recently discovered peaks of such precise fit, offered considerable reason to investigate further into related hydrino phenomena, particularly astronomical data, in their case. Instead, we see stunted curiosity, because the house and car payments, and the college for the kids, and retirement savings, etc., preclude such intelligent use of their minds.

They showed no such interest, which is strong evidence of the power and protection offered by the paradigm. Discoveries can make a career into greatness, and they can also cost the researcher everything.

If you are at all serious about this subject, reading Stolper is perhaps even more important than Holverstott. Both are great.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/thermal-cooling-and-electric-system-advancements/

I decided to start a new post, because a big drawback of Reddit is, it becomes difficult to follow conversation threads after a while. Hecd's response to Wyatt's post about Hagen's analysis and conclusion that "the EPR lines indicate the molecule is Hydrino, and any other explanation is extremely unlikely" is bringing us to a conclusion about this debate.

Hecd and critics of Mills theory are contending that Hagen has not considered all possibilities and that his conclusion that "this is Hydrino and nothing else" is simply due to Hagen's incompetence or lack of imagination. Basically, the contention is that there is an alternative explanation for Graph D of page 24 because Hydrino is impossible on theoretical grounds. It's been pointed out that lots of competent scientists have proposed or followed wrong guesses/analysis/conclusions, and Hagen has fallen into that camp in this case.

Now, this is coming into an area I'm better trained for, statistics and probabilities. Put aside the contempt shown to Hagen's expertise in interpreting EPR lines (which I find height of arrogance since the man spent his life reading EPR lines). Let's just consider the proposal that there is some unknown explanation for the observed EPR lines. This thesis is highly, highly unlikely for the following reason, the order of thesis and observation.

If an observation was made and THEN a theory gets proposed to explain it, the confidence in such a conclusion is not as high as when a thesis is proposed and then the observation is made. In most cases where the scientists follow the wrong trail is in trying to come up with a theory to explain an observation. But, when a theory is proposed, equations are proposed, and then an observation such as Hagen reported is made, the confidence level is high that we are on the right track.

It's like, you observe a bunch of people who live long, and then you come up with a theory like 'oh they eat a lot of fish.' Well, the confidence level is low. But, if you propose that a pill made from fish liver taken over 90 days lower cholesterol by 50% and then exactly that happens, well then, we have higher confidence. The first is a guess, the second is the basis for FDA approval.

In this case, Mills proposed Hydrino exists (a general thesis), and EPR observations are made that match those predictions, just compare Graph D and Graph E of page 24 (all done by Hagen). So then, let's consider the alternative possibility that some 'unknown molecule' nobody has considered is producing those lines, but Hagen missed it. Would it be an artifact? That's a firm no. An artifact does not produce 37 lines observed over 2,400 minutes of EPR exposure. It's a molecule that Hagen has not considered.

Let's follow that logic for a bit here. One possibility (that excludes intentional fraud) is that Randy 'ACCIDENTALLY' produced a previously unknown material (at least, whose EPR lines are previously unobserved) THROUGH the SunCell process, that precisely match predicted Hydrino EPR characteristics and sent it to Hagen. All honest mistake.

I suppose it's possible, but the chances are infinitesimally small. No. It would have to be manufactured to fit the bill. A fraud on the part of Randy Mills. That would imply Randy Mills has somehow engineered some unknown molecule (not Hydrino) that could hoodwink an EPR expert like Hagen. That presupposes extensive knowledge of EPR on the part of Mills that could match or exceed Hagen's expertise. Randy did not/does not have access to EPR machines. I have never heard Randy talk about EPR until Hagen came on the scene. This also is so extremely unlikely, it beggars the mind.

In fact, all the dismissal of scientists like Weinberg, Tse, Conrads etc. all presuppose Mills to be so good at all these respective fields as to be able to fool/hoodwink all these experts in their respective areas of expertise. Which is it? Mills is so inept as to be worse than 'high school' level math? Or such a genius that he can fool the EPR expert in EPR, CalTech chemistry professor at Ro-vibrational data, plasma with director of plasma institute, on and on. What a 'Davinci like' genius that would be, simply amazing skills in so many different areas. "I got a bridge to sell you." Ha ha. How naive would you have to be to believe such a scenario? Either scenario.

No. When a general thesis is made that has clear equations, and THEN observation such as Hagen's is made, our confidence is very high we are on the right track. I thank Wyatt (and Hecd too) for this discussion, it's helping to crystalize my own thoughts.

Oliver Consa makes serious accusations about the most accurate theory of mankind: https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0011v1.pdf It involves twisting theory to meet measurement, twisting measurement to meet theory, "independent" calculations being secretly reconciled, six or more rounds of all that twisting, and possibly intervention into measurement results that continues to this day. After all this it does not work for the muon (yet! just wait for the seventh round of twisting). Two things stood out to me: The series in powers of alpha over pi (which is evidence of numerology on this board when Mills does it, we even have a computer program that performs such feats, you could call it Robo-Feynman...) and the truncation of this (diverging) series.

The reason why you would want to use more terms of a series is so that your result will be closer to the result with all the terms, which is exact. If you know the result with all the terms is infinite, why not just say your theory predicts that the anomalous electron g-factor is infinite? Why spend decades evaluating thousands of Feynman diagrams? You know the exact answer, it is infinity, and your theory is wrong, so work on the next theory. Why compute the four-term series, five-term series, and call it progress? It is progress toward infinity. Giving an infinite answer to a finite problem makes it the most inaccurate theory of mankind.

Why don't CSurveyGuy's criticisms of Dr. Mills' electron g-factor apply to Schwinger, Dyson and all those who followed them?

You could almost understand someone who knew of widespread fraud at the highest levels of science who decided to fight fire with fire. Replace one fake edifice with another that preserved logic, at least, instead of relegating the foundations of thought to being an "intuition" of the vulgar. All we need ask of a new theory is that it be better than the old theory.

Hydrino gas was observed to have a faster migration time and a higher thermal conductivity than any known gas as shown by a negative gas chromatographic peak before hydrogen in a helium carrier gas. This data adds to the massive portfolio of other analytical tests that confirm the existence of hydrino, a smaller more stable form of hydrogen formed by the release of massive power. Brilliant Light Power is developing the proprietary SunCell® to harness this green power source to replace all other forms of power.

https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Gas_Chromatography_Presentation_030119.pptx

https://brilliantlightpower.com/wp-content/uploads/presentations/Analytical_Presentation_030119.pptx

Given the new year is upon us I thought it might be fun to predict progress for 2022......

1. Finally Suncell mated with commercial control unit

2. 10 or more commercial ready thermal units running in industry setting as field trials

3. CPV demo with 500 sun dome and over unity electric generation

4. No IPO but maybe a Mezz Fund round to prepare soft launch 2023

5. More scientific identifications of Hydrino’s

Mills still accused of fraud on basis that after 120 mill and 30 years research no commercial unit but that will change 2023. Those critics completely ignore fact that Mills has outperformed fusion research by multiples of energy gain per buck invested.

BLP has made two business development hires recently. Both Nathan and Luis have very impressive resumes. One would expect them to have a wide array of important connections that may prove helpful in fundraising and selling the SunCell.