The physics community will respond. They will reproduce the experimental results, or fail to do so, revealing the gaff. If it does get reproduced, and if they then put one of these things on orbit and it exhibits thrust, accelerating the device, well, time for a new theory. That’s not the inventor’s job. He’s got a thing that does a thing. If someone else wants to know why, then have at it, Hoss. Though a theory probably would help the engineers to get the thing to do the thing better. But until a testable theory comes along, we can do without. Edison built a useful light bulb via the brute force approach. Some better materials science would have helped, but he go there.

It’s not like there isn’t a whole bunch of stuff we can’t explain already. Just add this to the list.

For instance, it seems to me that since 1998, when we discovered that the expansion of the universe is accelerating, the 1st law of thermodynamics has been under a bit of a cloud. Either perpetual motion machines are a thing, or the “universe” is not a closed system, or we have no idea what the fundamentals of the situation really are and we need a whole new paradigm. Something has to give.

Theories come and go. It’s not like Newton’s laws haven’t taken a beating already. I mean, they are still true, except when they ain’t. So maybe we are finding a new way in which they ain’t.

Calling a theory a law is probably a tactical error.