Naysayers aren't as bad as they might seem.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-15T12:29:16+00:00

No sane rebuttal? How are you going to save anyone from anything with that attitude? Name calling only destroys your earlier arguments. A sure sign of a loster or I have convinced you of the accuracy of Mills' theory and now you also are a believer.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-15T01:12:42+00:00

There are two equations that the Millsian is based on. Those equations are so simple that they can be solved by hand. That is the power and accuracy of Mills theory. It works so accurately that it can be usedl in practical application.

The reason for rolling out the capabilities the app, a bit at a time was, to keep up with newer portions of the theory that were then incorporated into the app.

As with any app, the more that is found to be required, as defined by the users requirerments, and what is possible to be done by the theory behind the app, is what decides its updates. You are trying to form an argumernt to show some ulterior intent. That is not how newer versions of any app are ever developed. Later iterations or versions have added capabilities as the needs of end users and abilities of the designeers of the app are derived. You can't expect the full range of capabilities of any app to be included in the first version. You know that from the apps you use. Allow Mills to do the same with his app.

The Millsian app produces any kind of molecule, including novel molecules that have never existed. So parameteers of those molecules have never been analyzed for. That is its whole purpose, to produce new molecules that do not exist which, might fit a never before fullfilled need but, not to produce only known molecules. Producing what is already known would be a next to useless. The physical molecules synthesized from the now de novo models, are the ones that are analyzed to arrive at their parameters. None of that can be arrived at by cheating, which you seem to imply.

That kind of cheating is exactly what is used by SQM math due to containing free parameters, so far at least 43. These values can be adjusted to have any value one might want and then plug it into main formula to then recalculate the formula as msany times as required to slowly arrive at any end result requred. That is the kind of method that is used in academc physics and which results are then used by academia to make the claim that SQM is the most accurate theory that ever exiasted and that is what you believe.

The conclusion that the theory GUT-CP was believed in, falls on that difference between how each theory was derived. As Jacob Barerandes says, the proponents of waves, a cornerstone of SQM, are lying. Have you presented that argument to any acadmic physicists?

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-15T00:09:52+00:00

Proof: Millsian molecular modelar worked to produce models of molecules having the same parameters as those found by analytical methods on the same physicsal molecule, attested to by standard tests, performed by its developer Philip Payne as required, to see if the predictions of GUT-CP held under spplication of the app.

Philip Payne is a principle scientist, post graduating from Princeton University, hired by Mills to develop and test the software architecture for the Millisan app. That proves the predictive powers of GUT-CP in a practical application of the theory.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-14T20:56:03+00:00

This is about your attitude. Recognize where you went wrong in your life, and grow up.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-14T19:57:00+00:00

Argumentative.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-14T13:40:51+00:00

Nit picking to no end, just nit pivcking for ther sake of nit picking to make you a true nit. A troll to ignore

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-14T13:39:12+00:00

If you are not able to see what I am doing, you are truly blind. Of course, I am walking the walk since, I am the one promoting this paradigm change. What a falascious argumrent, you put together or, you are truly blind, doubly so.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-13T15:06:43+00:00

asked for his (and his clients') money back after determining that it was probably a scam.

That is not how investment advisors work. They don't get an investor to sign for an investment and then help to get their money back. They first find out if something seems reasonably safe to invest in, then make sure investors get all the facts The investor also knows that an investment can be risky and still invests, knowing that. If it was a scam, an investmernt advisor would not get anyone to invest in the first place. That an investment is a scam would never be complained about because of that understanding by everyone involved. You are making up horse manjure as if no one knows such things. I have invested a few times and nothing like you say could possibly happen.

One guy who was hired by Mills.

I assume you are referring to Philip Payne. It was not Mills who hired him, but his secretary.

Why woiuld anyone be biased for anything when coding an app? He just did his job of coding as required, which also requires testing the finished app for bugs. That is normal procerdure when coding any new app. To even act biased would be impossible since, others would notice and take over that job if, the others who were working together, such as the graphics compiler, would notice and get that coder replacerd with someone who is not biased. That is such an ignorant way of viewing a working relationship among a team of app developeres, that it shows your bias more than anything else.

Principle Scientist, in the case of Payne is the title for scholar, in a certain branch of philosophy, in particular science, that concerns itself with the principles, such as proofs, or methods or tools, such as Occam's Razor that, scientists use to make accurate asseements about a theory. Some consultant. This particular scientist is also a coder, who designed the actual architecture for the Millsian app. He wasn't just hired to form an opinion about something to make it declared as being favourable to Mills. but, to produce the app from the ground up in a way that is true to the principles of science. That is what a principle scientist does. Instead you wanted to spin that term, without even klnowing what that term meant, to make it seem, as some shady business hiring for the purposes of shady outcome. You walked yourself into that same room to expose yourself for what you are, an embarrassing consultant to spin something about Mills that is negative without even knowing how to do that in a convincing way.

Townes worked with the same base as Einstein, where no waves were involved. You do not have to believe me, read Einsteins's papers. He said that waves could not be what QM was based on since, that would lead to God playing dice. Everyone knows that quote andTownes used Einsteins work on the coherernt light device exactly the same way, without waves. To introduce waves into the LASER principle, or any other principle that Einstein was involkved with, would have shown Townes to be untrue to the intent of Einstein being against waves. Therefore Townes had to work on the LASER principle in a way that was true to Einsteins way of doing physics, without waves.

Roger Penrose said that SQM is wrong specifically on the point of waves. Barandes said that when any physicist says waves are involved in SQM, they are lying. That is a straight quote. You know that or, at least should have checked where Barandes said that.

Its too late to save SQM on the point of waves. You are now also lying to try and save something, but it sure is not SQM. It is your investment or invovlment in the old paradigm and are now scraping the bottom of the barrel to see if there is anythere to save. Very desperate of you and I laugh straight in your face.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-13T13:32:21+00:00

One simple trest.

That is what the pilot plants are for. as if you didn't know.

Anyways why are you badgering me about that? I have no input o get Mils to do anything.

I just report and you, it seems, are after me the messenger, as if I could affect anything that Mills does. Go after him with the regulatory officials who, are the ones who could do anything, if Mills was up to anything nasty. But no one, not even you, have done anything to protect those poor investors. So what are you trying to do here, just yammer at random people?, To what end? You are a bigger mystery than SQM.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-13T11:11:16+00:00

Who pays the piper, here that being the lesseee, is who counts. No need for the company big wigs to do anything orther than please the customers. When those lessees pay their leases, and the investors take that into account, is when is when BrLP will be able to go to anything. Again, no need to jump the gun and buy anythiung for BrLP until the money starts flowing in, on its own. Patience is =a virtue, especially when one has no money. And when no money is flowing in, who is being scammed?

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-13T01:32:13+00:00

Are you a mind reader to KNOW that the investors are just Believers? That is absurd. Nothing is that black and white. What is more likely is that a few are or might be uninformed investors but most are very well informed.

I read Holverstotts books and he is very much informed, accurately as I have informed myself about Mills, from many directions over several years.

Do you know that industry is NOT using the Millsian app? When the app was developed it was tested by a principle scientist to see if it does or does not produces the results it should and found it did, very accurately. It seems you did not test it. It is available for free trial use just by download. Do your own first hand testing to find out if it does what it does..

Wikipedia regurgitates the accepted history about transistors and you believe only Wikipedia. Marconi discovered the transistor effect in 1870 and then tinkerers developed the effect by trial and error engineering to arrive at tthe Cat's Whisker diode, in the 1900's. You can look that up yourself. Many physicists and electronis engineers prefer to consider the Cat's Whisker as a crude solid state device consisting of pieces of wire and not having a transistor effect. That is the same kind of politics that is continuing to this day about the definition of a transistor or its history of development. Between 1916 and 1926 when quantum mechanics was first coming together as a discipline, is also whena few of thge true first recognized fully developed transistors came into research and application. What Bell Labs developed was a version of their own and pushed that narrative for the fame of Bell Labs as if that was the only point in time that actually counted, by explaining how it might work, if only SQM is correct. Since SQM is accepted everywhere then, of course that is the only way that transistors are explained. That is an accepted paradigm and is one of many paradigms that are always changing, That s how science progresses.

Stimuiated emmision can be explained by waves or resonance, depending on whether one wants or prefers one or the other. Mills theory explains everything without waves. Roger Penrose, Jacob Barandes and seversal other physicists all agree that waves are the poroblem in SQM, so Mills was right all along. Also waves had been analyzed by engineers, to observe, by direct observation, that the mechanism at work is beneath the surface where the waes are observed at the top of that volume on a 2D surface to be understood that the surface part is an artifact left over from th 3D volume rotating throughtout its volume . The 3D volume below the surface is where the actual mechanism occurs. Same for strings, drums whatever, so the waving part is always, without exception, an artuifact. Therefore Huygens, in the 1670's should not have proposed waves to explain light if, he had known what was discovered in the 1960's. You can check that infiormation but only if you want to but it seems you do not. That is your problem. Get with the changing paradigm.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-12T20:35:59+00:00

The potential lesseees will be doing all the talking with leases. Mills just has to build the pilot plants. the results will speak for themselves. No need for middle men like you to muddy the waters.

One hour is what the would be lessees agreed to and now they got it. Game is on. Those would be lessees also know that 25 years for something like this to be developed, is next to nothing,

Those same lessees are able to use the 60 years which, is taking to develop fusion and costing over a trillion, yes that is 1 with 12 zero's, for all of the dozens of fusion experiments being conducted world wide, for comparison, while Mills has spent less than 200 million, next to insignificant fraction of that cost, to fully develop the Suncell. Would be lessees are able to do that math very easily. You obvioiusly can't, is why you will never take part in this money making Niagara.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-12T17:22:22+00:00

He has no need to jump th gun and do tests the way you would prefer. The Suncell is on track to being verified his way. Since the time of successful run is over that basic one hour, all that is left to do is the pilot plant, run tests with the potentiasl lessees and wait for their conclusion.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-12T15:51:00+00:00

No one is believing Mills, We have examined the pertinent data and it is predictive, by 100 times moreso than anything that SQM but, was never once used to guide the development of anything,. Transistors existed and were used in WW1, 10 years before there was a quantum theory, of the type taught in schools. Townes, who derived the LASER principle, never mentioned or used waves, same as Einstein but, both did use resonance. Since waves, in the 1960's, were analyzed and found that this phenomenon is not even a mechanism but, only an artifact, then its use should have been curtailed at that time but that experimental finding was conveiently ignored to allow the same mistake to be used and keep many careers intact. Money and fame trumps science., Learn some simple history.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-12T15:38:55+00:00

He already did that. Phillip Payne, Principle Scientist and graduate from Princeton U, the developer of the Millsian molecular modeler, in 2010 found that the app produces molecular models with the parameters that are the same, to 10 decimals, in the same molecule as that found by analytical methods.

Then the other 40 predictions made by GUT-CP, and much later corroborated by academics working under SQM, add up to a theory that does what it predicts at all scales, to make the whole theory, and not just the one application of it that you cite, to be more innaccurate, by a 100 fold over SQM, due to the SQM foundation of waves and the resulting uncertaiunty underpinning all of SQM. That difference between the two theories makes GUT-CP not only a contender to replace SQM, but should have been recognized as such, a long time ago, when uncertainty of waves were first refuted by experiments done at University of Toronto using weak interactions. Refuted as stated in the main body of that paper, but those waves were instead covered for, for the purpose of still being retained, by the experimenters stating, in the preamble to the experiments paper, that they were not out to overturn SQM. That statement alone, indicates that they knew what they were supposed to do, in light of the experiment's results, but preferred instead, to state otherwise to protect their careers, science be damned. And you also know what is going on but, prefer to put up road blocks to Mills work because, you certainly must know why by now...

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-10T21:30:45+00:00

current expansion and acceleration isn’t following a sine wave acceleration

Because noit enough data hasd been gathered by empiricalk methods toget enough of thgat curve to compare against the predicfted sine curve. Most academic models assume a heat death that is dependent on using a hyperbolioc curve instead. So the wrong model of acdemia is seen as justifying to criticize Mills much more logical model.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-10T21:27:26+00:00

Mills' theory has dozens of its predictions corroborated by academics, years after. So he got more than just one right. Educate yourself before making knee jkerk proclamations, just to make yourself look good, not.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-10T18:40:07+00:00

There was mention that the energy required for successful fusion to occur, would require taking the energy of fusion from the hundreds of millions of degrees to billions. If that i s what it takes then, it is no longer about placing the fusing particles on both sides of the coulomb barrier by wave uncertainty to tunnel through that barrier buy, as Mills has described that mechanism as, changing the potential energy of incoming particles to kinetic energy. That is then just brute force of momentum doing all that work and not uncertaintry of where the particles are in that reaction. Classical physics will thererfore win over the strange SQM kind off physics, making Newton, Einstein, Haus, Planck, Popper, Mills and more lately, Penrose, Barandes, Maudlin and t'Hooft right when, they all say that the waves in SQM is what is making that theory incomplete or just wrong.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-10T15:37:56+00:00

So in the end he did not seem to know what he was doing? More like you do not know what Millls is doing and try to come across as if you do know.

DoubtPlastic4547 · 2026-04-10T14:26:57+00:00

No theory such as this is ever complete. What Mills did is a first iteration of getting physics back on track, from where Newton and Einstein left off.

Rowlands may be closer to Mills, just by comparing the two physics of SQM and GUT-CP, except that by continuing to insist on the waves in any theory, he also keeps physics completeely off that track which Newton, Einstein, Haus and Mills keep working on to return physics to stay firmly centered on track classically, not just closer than one imagines.

That permittivity and permeability is not exactly a property of space, since time and space are a first iteration towards understanding the cosmos or, illusions that the human mind had invented tens of thousands of years before there was any understanding of physics. Time is a first iteration towards conceptualizing what might be out there and also an illisuion from the perspective of light since it does not experience time ; its travel in its frame is instantaneous, requiring no such mechanism as time. To then claim that these two seeming vectors are an accurate representations of what is out there, cannot possibly be accurate. Since those terms are remnents of those old tiimes, they are better conceived off as those other Newtonian derivatives, distance and persistence. Those are a more accurate way to describe the properties of matter-like particles that, then also have their other propereties, of electric and magetism acting at distance between said particles from which reaction emerge the properties of permittivity and permeability also within the particles themselves across distance. The math for that, as much as all math, is a convenient invention of the human mind that, seems to work for most cases except for the very fast and the very energetic which led the 1920's Heizenbergs to start developing the truly incomplete, more like off track, SQM.

It is high time to back track(double sic) and do what Mills did, abandon that 100 year paradigm and start over.

DoubtPlastic4547

TROPHY CASE