EMDrive from perspective of dense aether model

In dense aether model the Universe is steady state - just random and dynamic. We are just sampling the most determinist portion from this noise like the Boltzmann brains.
Our portion of Universe will be probably destroyed sooner or later - but to expect some regularity in this process would violate the Occam razor criterion.
I agree, that the research at Fermilab/Cern isn't worth of its investments, but I'm not sure about absence of fourth generation of particles.
Such a particles could survive in areas of vacuum with increased negative energy - actually by similar principle, like the hydrinos.

Randel Mills theory has undoubtedly many interesting insights, but I'm interested about physics from practical perspective of free energy - and Randell Mills claimed formation of hydrinos already in 1991 for nickel - potassium carbonate electrolysis, which later turned out to be nuclear transmutations with K->Ca, Rb->Sr a Cs->Ba shifts, so I've no reason to believe him today. Most of Mills patents are based on hydrino stuff and they will become vulnerable once it will turn out, that the SunCell reactor is plasma suported fusion in Mizuno style. Note that Potassium is the most notorious of the so-called Mills catalysts for forcing ground state redundancy, well known from the Thermacore patent and experiments going back to the early 1990s for DARPA (Gernert paper). Personally I'd reccomend to replicate these experiments too, as the COP reported by Mills (>37) looks too good for me, for being ignored the more.

Water surface analogy makes the role of qantum mechanics and general relativity clear again. If we would live at the water surface like the waterstriders and if we would observe it with its own ripples, we would experience analogy of quantum mechanics and general relativity at two distance scales too. At two distance scales the deforms of water surface would lead into slowing of water surface spreading in such a way, the energy density of water surface deform would manifest itself like the mass density. This is because every deform of water surface exposes additional density fluctuations of water surface (Brownian noise), which slow down surface ripples like sparse gradient of matter. This dependence works at two distance scales, where the transverse surface ripples change into longitudinal - nowhere else. Just because we aren't forced to observe the water surface with its ripples and we can observe it with another much faster waves, this analogy escapes our attention.

Why these distance scales are just two? Well, because the speed of surface ripples goes through minimum at the wavelenght 1.73 cm. Just at this wavelength the surface waves spread like so-called the capillary waves with (nearly) no drag of underwater and background scattering. This has two consequences: the speed of surface waves will become invariant to motion of underwater, thus satisfying the analogy of Lorentz invariance of special relativity. The second consequence is even more significant: because the spreading of surface ripples is slowest at this wavelength, for us - hypothetic waterstriders - the water surface would look as large and transparent/empty as possible. At both sides from this minimum the scattering of surface ripples with underwater will apply and we would see, how the deform of water surface (metric tensor) becomes proportional to its energy density (stress energy tensor). I.e. we could postulate general relativity for wavelengths larger than 1.73 cm.

Not accidentally the critical wavelength of light waves in vacuum is very similar and it corresponds the wavelength of microwave background. Just at this wavelengths the Universe looks as empty, large and transparent as possible. The wavelength of CMBR therefore denotes the human observer scale and important boundary between distance scale of general relativity and quantum mechanics. The water surface analogy of space-time is therefore way more interesting than it looks at the first sight. It represents the pocket model of observable Universe for us - this one, which we can observe like some deity from outside.

The distance scales of general relativity and quantum mechanics are recognizable in this model easily, because the objects look as symmetric and spherical at these scales, as possible. The Universe gets most simple at these distance scales, therefore it has a good meaning to approximate it just with two simplistic theories there. All other distance scales resist their deterministic description in smaller or larger extent. The scope of human observation steadily expands from human observer scale: until it pervaded the scopes of general relativity and quantum mechanics, everything looked well, because the formal equations gave working testable predictions and the physicists learned to use them instead of logical explanations of reality. But once the scope of human observation crossed the distance scales of these two theories, then universe becomes classical again and these two theories get less or more broken. And this is just the present epoch of reality understanding, when these simplistic low-dimensional models don't work anymore.

It has therefore no meaning to criticize Einstein or quantum theorists, because they just developed the best theories for most deterministic portion and distance scales of our Universe. We could hardly develop simpler and more effective theories - the problem is, these theories cover only portion of observable universe, which is now relatively shrinking due to improvement of our observational technologies.

In dense aether model the Hubble red shift is the analogy of the shift of wavelenths of surface ripples with distance. Vacuum isn't homogeneous and the light waves get scattered with quantum fluctuations of vacuum. Theire losing their energy and their wavelenght expands with distance because of it. Because the quantum fluctuations are quantized, the expansion of wavelength isn't fully linear but quantized too. Here it's important to realize, that the scattering of transverse waves with density fluctuations is completely different from scattering of light with tiny obstacles during sunset. The common scattering works with tiny but very stable obstacles, whereas the density fluctuations of vacuum are unstable and relatively large and their lifetime and size remains comparable with wavelength of light, so that the peaks of mutual interference of transverse and longitudinal waves are expectable there (in analogy to interference stripes formed during Mie scattering of light at small obstacles). But I admit, the Hubble red shift quantization still waits for its thorough and robust explanation even in steady state Universe model.

Quote

You are doubting string-theory but want to support negative energy ? Paradox, isn't it?

Not at all, the string theory can be doubted easily, because it uses Lorentz symmetry postulate, which it assumes the existence of extradimensions. But the first thing, in which these extradimensions would manifest itself is the violation of Lorentz symmetry *). This intrinsic inconsistency of postulates leads into fuzziness of string theory predictions and wast landscape of its solution, so it cannot be experimentally tested. The negative energy is otherwise one of evidence of extradimensions, which I have nothing against - it's just poorly and vaguely defined concept as well. The string theory is just an example of mixing of otherwise relevant postulates of various theories, which just have different validity scope from inconsistent observational perspectives.

*) It can be understood easily with water surface analogy again. If the water surface would be really 2D thin membrane driven with surface tension only, it wouldn't exhibit any drag in similar way, like the capillary waves do. But the existence of density fluctuations within (additional dimension of) underwater leads into surface wave scattering and formation of solitons (photons, neutrinos) and similar turbulences (dark matter particles). Therefore the hidden dimension of underwater manifest itself just with surface wave drag, i.e. violation of their invariance with respect to reference frame of underwater. If the string theorists would use some physical model based on tangible geometry instead of abstract equations, they would realize the fundamental controversy of their theory a long time ago.

The string theory can be still mildly useful in very narrow range of dimensional scale, when the amplitude of perturbations doesn't induce too large drag, for example just for description of dark matter particles and scalar waves, the existence of which the physicists deny obstinately (thus killing the main way, in which their theories can be actually tested). In dense aether model the extradimensions are all around us and the quantum gravity theories are attempting to describe everyday reality all around us, despite they don't realize it at all. But the concept of extradimensions assumes, that the background space is fully flat, which is never provided in full depth. In this way, the (presence of) extradimensions tends to violate itself once their number increases. The string/susy predictions are therefore relevant only for subtle phenomena, the dimensionality of which isn't very high.

But the existing models suffer with another problems, for example with ignorance of topological inversion of space-time at the human observer scale, which leads them into predicting of correct phenomena at wrong distance scales, where they evade attention so far. The contemporary theories are very messed from this perspective, as the physicists never understood, that the reconciliation of quantum mechanics and general relativity must be done at the distance scales BETWEEN both these theories - not just somewhere else at the esoteric Planck scale.

Quote

It did not take too long, to put all those nations together at one table investing in the future together, instead of investing in whatever they thought, they might have needed during WW2 or WW1.

The fact that investments into research are common doesn't imply, that these investments must be ever useful for something. The existing applications of elementary particles don't utilize the collider physics done after WWW II at all, in this sense these experiments could wait easily another fifty years or so, until we would finally have some usage for it. They serve only as an evasion for grants and jobs of physicists itself, whereas just these physicists ignore the really contributive findings like the cold fusion for whole century. The more physicists will get jobs in collider physics, the more of them will boycott the cold fusion - in this sense the investments into high energy physics research are even counterproductive. Such a research it's just a drain of resources and intellectual capacity of human civilization. The players of strategical games like the Civilization, Warcraft or AgeOfEmpire known well, it has no meaning to invest way too much resources into research the results of which become obsolete before they can be even used. But the scientists pretend, that such an optimization of research priorities has no place in real human society until their money are going.

Quote

Why they are focused on ITER/Wendelstein-X

Large projects are reliable source of jobs and money (not only for physicists, but also for private companies involved), as they can be researched infinitely. The giant centralized sources of energy warrant and justify the power of centralized governments. In contemporary society doesn't really matter if some project is contributory, but if it enables to drain the money from tax payers pockets. From the same reason the nonsensical plans of Elon Musk got so wide publicity in media. Temperature of plasma reached in Wendelstein-X corresponds the temperatures of plasma in tokamaks before forty years - I wouldn't expect very fast results from it...

Quote

Go to poor people on the whole world, show them one of the prototypes, show them how to replicate. The rest would come ALONE.

You should do some research first. If the cold fusion research would get the resources and organization like single ITER or NIF hot fusion project, we would already have cold fusion generators in every home.

Prototypes indeed exist E-Cat, Brilloulion - but you have to invest into research first.