I am sure Lazar is telling the truth. His explanation locks in too well with 
too many sightings to be fabricated.
He told the story as well as he could with what data he saw....
and yes I agree with you, if he understood the complete function to be able 
to write a full fledged theory,
he would be the next Einstein. There is large agreement among scientists 
that some elements with higher numbers than the ones discovered up until now 
(including 115) may indeed be stable... I read this in a book from Isaac 
Asimov that is old of course since he is dead. For the ignorant, Isaac 
Asimov was also a scientist of immense knowledge,  and not only a science 
fiction writer.




"mike3" <mike4ty4@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
news:1135070950.829601.260400@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Hi.

Take a look:

Lazar Critique http://www.serve.com/mahood/lazar/critiq.htm

Anyone wanna refute?

Here's my take: there are some problems with this critique. The most
blatant is that the criticizer demands Lazar put out a complete model
of his new theory, ASSUMING that he would be able to do that if he is
as well-versed in physics as he claims, and that if he can't, he
doesn't know jack. But this ASSUMPTION is wrong: Lazar was working on a
device that only a few people knew about and even they knew very little
about how it worked! So some of his ideas could be inaccurate, and he
CERTAINLY would not have enough knowledge about this machine to
formulate a complete, polished, new theory of physics! The argument
presented in the above site collapses.

What do you think?