my original point was that people figure this sort of thing out all the time
No, they don't. To the best of my knowledge, not a single experiment in the public sector has ever succeeded in producing any detectable type of gravitational field in the lab (or garage, living room, whatever). It's very easy to make claims, which is why they're meaningless. Credible experimental data is an entirely different matter - nobody's provided that to prove their claims of generating a technological gravitational field effect.
You have this wild idea that gravity is easy to create with an experiment, but there's zero credible empirical data to support that position, and in fact, the gravitational equation illustrates why it's such a difficult effect to produce - the Einstein coupling constant. That factor shows us why huge magnitudes of mass-energy-stress-pressure-momentum are required to produce a measurable gravitational field effect.
In the academic literature I've seen exactly one viable proposal for detecting an extremely weak artificial gravitational field in the lab, and it requires two mammoth superconductors and a very finely tuned resonant laser interferometer. As far as I know, nobody's been willing to fund it yet, but that's the most likely approach to detecting a man-made gravitational field for the first time in the public sector.
David Pares clearly has the physics wrong
Well that's a huge problem, don't you think? If the physics is wrong, then the claims are also probably wrong. You just don't fall out of bed one morning and stumble upon the world's first viable warp drive. You have to know what you're doing. And if the physical theory is wrong, then you clearly don't know what you're doing.
I actually love experimentalists of all kinds - including David Pares. It's great to try new things to see what happens. But the most brilliant theoretical minds have been trying to crack the problem of a low-power warp drive for many decades, and they've come up with bupkis so far. So the chances that David Pares has stumbled upon it while trying to model a wormhole that somebody reported over the Bermuda Triangle, are beyond astronomically minute.
but there is a clear path for how what he built might work,
what if a moving electrostatic field makes a magnetic field (that part is proven quite well)
and that magnetic field generated is not connected physically to what made it like an electromagnet is (I have seen this, but not "proven" in science)
When light propagates through spacetime, the electric and magnetic fields are not connected physically to the source. So that is proven science. But if you think that we can make a static magnetic field free of a source, then I'd like to see some credible experimental data before taking any such claims seriously, because it strikes me as physically nonsensical. The field interpretation appears to be a convenient notation for the transmission of forces between interacting
bodies of matter - nothing more.
this would show how the David Pares device works as well as the NASA impossibility drive works
By that you must mean "not at all," because the EM Drive also appears to be experimental error.
it is why you reproduce your own work before asking others to do so,
but when someone is on the 5th generation of a technology,
they have likely reproduced what they did somewhere in the range of 5 times
and at that point, seems like it is time to test what they did and not just set them aside
No, the number of generations is meaningless. A lone experimenter like Pares is likely misinterpreting a known effect for an unknown effect, or simply making the same error in each iteration of his fractal antenna thingy.
There's no way to know without a thorough and rigorous examination of his set-up and his test results.
I remember looking at his initial work, years ago, and seeing several possible effects that could be tilting his device a little bit, which he seemed to be completely unaware of because he hadn't safeguarded against them with his set-up. Thermal effects and ion wind effects are very tricky to eliminate, for example. Power couplings leak, producing moving air. Power lines heat up and deform, producing force. Lenz law interactions with nearby conductors produce forces. Cooling fans create air circulation when turned on. Etc etc etc.
Conducting a rigorous scientific experiment is extremely difficult. It's easy for very sincere people working with little knowledge of rigorous experimental procedure to *think* they've found an effect, when in reality they're just being fooled by their own confirmation bias. Sometimes even an entire team, or teams, of highly experienced professionals fail to identify the cause of an experimental error - if you recall the widely hyped claims of a superluminal signal along fiber-optic cables in Europe a few years ago, you'll see what I mean.
That's why every amateur experimentalist who has ever claimed to produce an anomalous gravitational field effect with a few bucks and a give 'em hell attitude, has been wrong.
I hope they'll keep trying, but I wish they'd refrain from promoting extravagant claims about making the greatest discovery in scientific history, until somebody actually replicates their effect independently in a professional lab with trained scientists performing the replication. Because that's how science works.