The papers submitted are the result of further experimentation. If you read any of my earlier posts you'll see that even the most ardent critic of Taleyarkan has achieved some limited results with his own experiments. The scientific community will decide in it's own time what is happening here (and there surely is a process at work that is not clearly understood) but your assertion that this is all BS isn't credible in light of the results that have been achieved so far.
Nowhere did I say it is BS. Indeed, I said:
"A couple of experiments like the ones described here are fine and worthy endeavors, and the experimenters should be encouraged."
Let the experimenters carry on. I'm an experimentalist myself, I like it when people rock the boat.
I'm only objecting to the idea that these initial forays are already worthy of talk about challenging the laws of physics. Reality check...
Oh, yeah. There's also got to be some serious math behind it. Physics and math are fraternal twins -- not identical, but they are so tightly bonded as to be inseparable. There is not one good scientific hypothesis, much less theory or law, that doesn't have a solid mathematical basis. That's some of what takes decades. If there is anything that smacks of "proof" in physics, it is due to the math, not to any number of experiments. Experiments can only disprove.
Consider something as simple as Ohm's Law in electricity. He got it wrong for years due to the internal resistance of his own batteries. The simple truth emerged long after the original experiments and documents, for which he was roundly criticized.
"New" is not a compliment, in physics. It is grounds for healthy and tough skepticism.
I recommend that you clam down. Don't overreact as I have in the past.