“I’ll be honest from the start and say… ‘my interest in Millsian Inc. is purely recreational! 😀 Dimethyltryptamine, psilocybin, Lysergic acid diethylamide’…” “Nice!”
“No, seriously though… those of you that are transhumanist! Wish to extend the human life into the hundred of years…”
Millsian Inc. is a revolutionary software developed by Randell Mills, which uses his classical GUT-CP theory to solve structures of not just simple atoms and molecules, but potentially ALL molecular structures (infinitely?) ranging from organic molecules to complex compounds (DNA to proteins etc.) . It uses classical Maxwell and Newton laws at an atomic level, and has been significantly more accurate in it’s predictions than ‘Quantum’ laws. Thus it can accurately build complex 3D structures and precisely calculate the total bond energy and the heat of formation.
Further information from the inventor can be found at Millsian.com and BrillaintLightPower.com.
Many believe this to be the future of molecular modelling, having profound implications in industries and areas of research such as pharmaceuticals, drug development, genetics, chemistry, material science… again… try and fathom what is being laid out here and realise the future possibilities are limitless!
“Life, down to the last electron” (Brett Holverstott)
The phosphate strands, joined by a ladder of base pairs, spirals around one another in a double-helix. Seeing the structure visualized with Mills’s theory was not just a milestone for our software, a satisfying culmination of a year of development work, nut an extraordinary experience of beauty.
The strands seemed to be dancers, spinning, their energy and momentum thrusting them outward, a free arm flying through the air, the other locked with that of their partner.
Yes, I fell in love with the DNA molecule in that moment. Nature in all her indifference to human life, is beautiful in the abstract form of her physical architecture we find reflections of our own memory and experience.
Practically speaking, the ability to represent the exact the exact distribution of charge on the surface of the molecule is a huge leap forward from the approximations of quantum mechanics that are available in today’s molecular modelling software.
Mills’s theory should allow us to better predict chemical reactivity, and better predict how proteins fold. It should aid drug-discovery programs aiming to find molecules that fit reactive sites. These are improvement that expect will allow great leaps in the pharmaceutical industry in years to come.” (Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy – Brett Holverstott)
My interest is in the future of genetic research and our understanding of DNA! (considering the little miracle we call DNA is still throwing us huge surprises and complete mysteries) Baylor researchers unravel mystery of DNA conformation “DNA is not a stiff or static. It is dynamic with high energy. It exists naturally in a slightly underwound state and its status changes in waves generated by normal cell functions such as DNA replication, transcription, repair and recombination. DNA is also accompanied by a cloud of counterions (charged particles that neutralize the genetic material’s very negative charge) and, of course, the protein macromolecules that affect DNA activity.” BREAKING: Scientists Have Confirmed a New DNA Structure Inside Human Cells It’s not just the double helix! “As Zeraati explains, the answers could be really important – not just for the i-motif, but for A-DNA, Z-DNA, triplex DNA, and cruciform DNA too. “These alternative DNA conformations might be important for proteins in the cell to recognise their cognate DNA sequence and exert their regulatory functions,” Zeraati explained to ScienceAlert.” DNA Hydrogels for Biomedical Applications “DNA can be used as the only component of a hydrogel, the backbone or a cross-linker that connects the main building blocks and forms hybrid hydrogels through chemical reactions or physical entanglement. Responsive constructs of DNA with superior mechanical properties can undergo a macroscopic change induced by various triggers, including changes in ionic strength, temperature, and pH. These hydrogels can be prepared by various types of DNA building blocks, such as branched double-stranded DNA, single-stranded DNA, X-shaped DNA or Y-shaped DNA through intermolecular i-motif structures, DNA hybridization, enzyme ligation, or enzyme polymerization.”
“The following article is authored by Koroeda at Philosophystorm.org . The article is translated from Russian, and I recommend you visit the site and check out previous articles from the author on the subject of GUT-CP and hydrino theory (I will post in following weeks). I’ve just translated and pasted into English, because the author has done a superb explanation of the history, the science and magnitude of this discovery. Also an introduction to Millsian.com, a molecular modelling software developed by Mills, which is proving to be far more accurate in solving atoms and molecules than any previous ‘Quantum’ modelling. I imagine such software and applications will lead to new developments in genetic biology, pharmaceuticals, neuroscience etc…
And hats off the Russians! ;D … Ushankas?”
(“Do I think the Russians will pay for this technology?… Do I bollocks! 😀 Well ‘head in the stars, feet on the ground’ so to speak… Russians, Chinese… Israel sure as f**k won’t pay for it! ;D … I’ll elaborate on my views concerning geo-politics in future posts!… … who gives a shit for the Brits?” )
His Majesty the Electron
Systematization and communication
Science and Technology
The turn of the 19th and early 20th centuries was really a great era, a turning point in the history of mankind. The moment of the “phase transition” of quantitative changes in qualitative, time of great discoveries that occurred one after another, radically changed the face of civilization. It was a true revolution in science and technology, when the human mind finally got enough tools to comprehend the greatest mystery-the riddle of the structure of matter.
April 30, 1897, there was a momentous event. On that day, the head of the Cavendish Laboratory, the English physicist JJ Thomson, spoke at a meeting of the Royal Society of London about his experiments with an improved cathode-ray tube, which led to the discovery of the first elementary electron particle. This day is considered the “birthday” of the electron, although Thomson’s discovery was only the final point in the many years of work of a number of scientists. The discovery of the electron had a tremendous impact on the development of science and technology. In fact, it has become a cornerstone for the whole building of modern civilization.
From this moment on, physicists began to advance different models of the structure of the atom, striving to bring it as close as possible to the experimental data obtained. It was quite a normal scientific process, where as the new data was received, the model also changed.
Thomson himself proposed his model in 1904, assuming that the atom is a positively charged sphere with electrons embedded in it, a kind of “plum pudding”. The Thomson model was experimentally disproved by Geiger and Mardsen in 1909, by experimenting with the scattering of alpha particles on a gold foil.
The next model of the atom was proposed by the discoverer of the proton, Ernest Rutherford. It was the so-called Planetary model, according to which negatively charged electrons move around a positively charged nucleus along circular orbits like planets in the solar system. It was a long-known and accepted in science model. So why not apply it to the atom? This is exactly what Rutherford did. However, this model had a cardinal drawback-the impossibility of explaining it to the stability of atoms. From classical electrodynamics it follows that if electrons move around the nucleus, experiencing centripetal acceleration as planets around the Sun, then they would, according to the laws of classical electrodynamics, emit electromagnetic waves, lose orbital energy of motion and, as a result, fall on the nucleus.
This problem had to be solved somehow, as a result of which, in 1913, an “improved model” of the atom-quantum model of Niels Bohr appeared. In contrast to the Rutherford model, in the quantum model, electrons move around the nucleus not in arbitrary orbits, but only in orbits with a strictly defined energy and are kept at a certain distance from the nucleus, because the centrifugal force leading an electron from the orbit coincides in magnitude with force of attraction between the electron and the nucleus. In turn, radiation or absorption occurs only at the moment of transition from one orbit to another, and only those orbits are stationary, in which motion the momentum of an electron is equal to an integer number of Planck’s constant. This model proved to be quite applicable to the simplest atom-hydrogen atom, but it did not work well in describing more complex atoms.
Nevertheless, it was taken as the basis that lies at the basis of the modern quantum-mechanical model of the atom. In the modern quantum-mechanical representation, the electron appears in the form of an “electron cloud” whose density of sections is proportional to the probability of finding an electron there. It is noteworthy that in the modern quantum-mechanical representation, an electron has no structure, being an unstructured particle.
This was a momentous moment in the history of science, a kind of “frontier strip” that separated the era of classical physics from quantum mechanical. For a long time, bitter arguments were being waged around quantum mechanics, and many outstanding minds, such as Albert Einstein, never accepted it. But over time quantum mechanics, and its generated ideas about the structure and properties of matter, have become dominant. Rather, the “Copenhagen school” of quantum mechanics, founded by Niels Bohr, dominated in science.
However, to what extent is the currently accepted model of electron in quantum mechanics close to reality? The very formulation of this question looks in the eyes of the orthodox physicists seditious. And meanwhile, the question of this by the present moment is more acute than ever. Why?
As you know, the main criterion for the truth of any theory is practice. So once, at one time, classical mechanics led to the implementation of a number of engineering innovations in real life, and in many ways was the reason for the beginning of the industrial revolution. The physical picture of the world that was true for its time served as the basis for a whole series of technological breakthroughs that laid the foundation of modern civilization.
According to this logic, quantum mechanics, which became the “Holy Grail” of modern physics, should lead to a huge number of them. However, in due measure this did not happen. Moreover, according to some physicists, stagnation has begun in physical science, which can be characterized as a period of “60 years without victories”.
What was the reason for this? Perhaps, not quite true physical picture of the world, a little connected with a reality? And how can it be that entire generations of scientists still do not notice this? And if they noticed, then why did not they take the courage to openly state this?
Probably, the answer to this question lies primarily in the social plane, in the very structure of science as a social phenomenon. The community of scientists is a community of people, and nothing human is alien to them. It has the same “social mechanisms” as in human society as a whole. For example, the oldest and most effective of them is authority. And as you know, an authoritative idea or teaching, gaining a lot of supporters (mastering the masses), becomes a “material force”. But at the same time, often, it becomes a doctrine (an important management tool), the encroachment on which is a fierce rebuff from its supporters. There is a remarkable irony in the fact that K. Marx himself, who first deduced this formula, became its victim.
Is it possible to encroach on the authority of the famous scientist, without corresponding consequences? Is it possible to try to refute the generally accepted system of views without “insulting the feelings” of its followers? The history of mankind gives a very unequivocal answer to this question. At best, the brave soul awaits the fate of Galileo, at worst the fate of Bruno. Although there were exceptions. But they only confirm the rule: the struggle of ideas is sometimes as brutal as the struggle of their bearers-people. However, time after time, sooner or later, Galileo still appears, and this is just as natural as the “fall” of an apple on Newton’s head. Human thought can not be stopped. So it happened this time.
Science continued to accumulate experimental data, and over time a large number of puzzles, requiring explanation, accumulated. And it is quite natural that scientists who tried to solve them tried to look differently at the model of the electron. However, for a long time these attempts were unsuccessful. Probably, this was a consequence of the fact that theoretical physicists continued to think in the former, quantum-mechanical paradigm, which was a strong binding factor for scientific thought. Having done a “turn wrong”, science was in a long dead end. The way out of it was impossible without a radical change in the paradigm of thinking, the development of a fundamentally new understanding of the mechanism of the behavior of an electron.
Finally, a way out of the current impasse was found by the famous American scientist, Dr. Randall Mills. It was for him, for the first time, that he was able to offer a much more successful, alternative model of the electron, which explains the mechanism of its behavior in a fundamentally different way, rather than the quantum-mechanical model.
A new concept of the electron was expounded by Dr. Mills in his fundamental theoretical work The Grand Unified Theory of Classical Physics.
What is an electron in the model of Dr. Mills?
Here is a visual picture of this model.
In the understanding of Dr. Mills, an electron outside the atom, a free electron, is a two-dimensional, indivisible membrane (a flat thin film) consisting of negatively charged current loops that, when captured by a charge of the nucleus, can completely change its shape (spherical).
Thus, an electron in an atom is an “orbit-sphere” -spherical shell (like a soap bubble) surrounding the nucleus. However, this sphere is not monolithic, but consists of a continuous distribution of current loops that create two angular momentum vectors that generate the electron spin phenomenon. In general, the orbit is a very thin superconducting surface with a homogeneous mass and charge density.
In the atom, the orbitsphere functions as a “dynamically resonating cavity,” expanding and contracting as it absorbs and emits discrete frequencies of light (photons), which is the physical basis of quantization. After capture, the electric fields of the photons change the balance of forces that exists between the proton and the electron. The combination of the properties of the electron orbit and captured photon determines the radius of the electron shell. When the absorbed photons increase the radius of an electron before it is ionized, it becomes a free electron, which again returns to the shape of the disk in the absence of external fields that affect its curvature.
Here is a graphic picture of what electrons represent in an atom, using the example of the first 20 elements of the periodic table.
In molecules, electrons are stretched into two nuclei, forming an elongated spheroidal shell with nuclei in foci, the so-called “molecular orbital”.
So, the simplest molecule, the hydrogen molecule looks like this.
And this is what a molecule of water looks like
Thus, according to the theory of Dr. Mills, atoms and bonds consist of discrete surfaces of negative charge, rather than clouds of probability density. This approach otherwise solves the problem of the stability of an atom rather than a quantum mechanical model, returning the understanding of an electron to the channel of classical physics (Maxwell’s electrodynamics). This, a completely new understanding of the nature of the electron, served as the basis for a whole series of discoveries.
However, initially, the new understanding of the nature of the electron put forward by Dr. Mills was very skeptical in the scientific community, since it fundamentally contradicted the widespread quantum mechanical concepts about it. He was attacked by a flurry of criticism from “authoritative scientists”.
In this case, the question arises: how true is the model of Dr. Mills?
Rather, it is legitimate to ask another question: how much closer is it to reality than the quantum mechanical model? And what remains “in the dry”, if you delete the “authoritative opinions” of many critics of Mills, whose main accusation is that he encroached on the established, well-known, and so all explaining, old, good quantum mechanics, devaluing the scientific authority of the set Its followers, both in the past and in the present?
Correctly. Already mentioned, the only criterion of the truth of theory-practice.
Everything is relative. So what are the practical results of applying the new model of the electron, and the theory based on it?
And what do we need models for? Naturally, in order to obtain explanations and generate predictions. And, the better the explanations, and the more effective the predictions, the better the model works. It was in this field that the new model of Dr. Mills proved to be the best.
One of the directions, where the new model of the atom showed its amazing effectiveness, was analytical chemistry, namely, computer simulation of molecular structures. The computer simulation program developed on the basis of the Mills theory (at the present moment-Millsian 2.1) proved to be much more efficient in calculations than its competitors based on the quantum-mechanical model.
Here is a comparative graph of the effectiveness of the two models.
As can be seen from the graph, the effectiveness of Dr. Mills’s model is many times higher, which allows us to calculate and present accurate profiles for molecules of any size and complexity, and with amazing accuracy to model such complex molecules as insulin and DNA.
It is noteworthy that the images of molecules made under an electron microscope and the molecular models obtained by Mills coincide almost completely. Here, for example, a photograph of a molecule of pentacin superimposed on its own computer model.
Thus, the new model of the structure of the atom, put forward by Dr. Randall Mills, proved to be very effective in the field of modeling, showing excellent results in predictions.
However, GUT-CP theory of Dr. Mills became breakthrough not only in chemistry, but also in many other areas in science and technology. For example, in cosmology, where she solved many mysteries, such as the mystery of the solar corona, the mystery of dark matter, the mystery of the phenomenon of accelerating the expansion of the universe, and even the riddle of the phenomenon of gravity.
But the most remarkable, fateful for the history of mankind breakthrough Dr. Randall Mills committed in the field of energy, because his theory predicted the existence of a particularly compact state of hydrogen-hydrino (see Fig. Hydrinos in the periodic table above). Turning into hydrino, hydrogen releases a huge amount of energy, hundreds of times more than when burning hydrogen.
The discovery of hydrino served as the basis for the creation of a compact, cheap, incredibly powerful and environmentally friendly energy source that will in future allow humanity to solve such a fundamental problem as dependence on fossil fuels and the associated problem of harmful emissions into the atmosphere. The introduction of a new source of energy, as has already happened more than once in the history of mankind, in the future will lead to a new industrial revolution, radically changing the face of human civilization.
Solving the riddle of the electron, and putting forward a fundamentally new physical picture of the world, Dr. Randall Mills laid the foundation for another revolution in science and technology.
Is this enough to defeat skepticism?