I risk getting banned from this site, but I have checked and rechecked this over six years of deep research. This consists of what is claimed in the following books; validity and accuracy of the core physics as portrayed in the sum total of claims in these books and individually. The only conclusion possible is that the theory is a much more accurate way of portraying or explaining the cosmos, than the claims made in the sum total found in the accepted way of doing physics.
"America's Newton The reception of the work of Randell Mills, in historical and contemporary context", Thomas E. Stolper
"Randell Mills and the Search for Hydrino Energy", Brett Holverstott
"The Grand Unified Theory-Classical Physics", Randell Mills, John J. Farrell, W. Good
GUT-CP is slowly but surely replacing Standard Quantum Mechanics, by way of its more accurate predictions, by its larger number accurate answers to questions about nearly all known phenomena, and by the development and use of several items based on this kind of physics, as compared to the same found under the accepted way of doing physics.
In keeping with the requirement of references by others, towards this answer, are a list of those who took part in the tests of the claims under the theory as those who are knowledgeable in this area:
Individuals who made those tests:
Anthony Marchese, mechanical engineering professor, Rowan University, tested the reaction under the theory at the behest of The National Aeronautic and Space Administration
Eric Hermanson, MS Nuclear Engineering, MIT, 1994 reviewed the thesis consisting of GUT-CP
Prof. Huub Bakker, a senior lecturer in engineering at Massey University is developing a device using anti-gravity as produced using under the theory
Some of those who did tests of a reaction predicted by the theory, to produce energy at a density rate that is about a thousand times greater than can be achieved from any chemical reaction known, but with no explanation found using Standard Quantum Mechanics. Their statements indicate that, although being knowledgeable in doing such test, they have no explanation, based on SQM, that would apply to the results.
Y. Lu, R. Frazer. Chinese Journal of Physics
Randy A. Booker Ph D.
John Lotoski University of Waterloo · Department of Chemistry
Gerrit Kroesen Plasma Physicist, Eindhoven Technological University
Alexander Bykanov Expert: EUV, Plasma-Physics, Diagnostics, Optics,
Kamran Akhtar Ph D.
J. Lotoski International Journal of Hydrogen EnergyVolume 40, Issue 1, 5 January 2015, Pages 25-37
J. Kong, G. Chu, J. He, J. Trevey, International Journal of Hydrogen Energy 39 (2014), DOI: 10.1016/j.ijhydene.2014.06.153. pp. 14512–14530
W. Henry Weinberg B.S. Ph.D. Chemical Engineering University of California, Berkeley California Institute of Technology Professor of Chemical Engineering and Chemical Physics Professor of Chemical Engineering Materials Engineering, and Chemistry at the University of California, Santa Barbara, CTO of Symyx Technologies of Santa Clara, CA, Adjunct Professor at UCSB
These are the most qualified, as well as having having taken a direct and leading part in the study or testing of reactions predicted by the theory. There are many others who are engineers and students in closely related disciplines, that have stated that the theory is, for many reasons, much better than the currently accepted theory.