It's that you are simply ignorant of the history of this technology

I was well aware of the origins of the maser and laser prior to your lecture. You assume I was ignorant because I wasn't using the words you wanted. That was an assumption that was false (like so many).

the accepted terminology in this field of endeavor.

OK, maybe in laser engineering, but in the field of physics, where I have used and built lasers, we use the word "laser" to indicate a laser, regardless of frequency (or wavelength if you prefer).

It is what it is.

and optical wavelengths do not "couple" (whatever you think that to mean)

Technologically they couple, not optically. One performs one function, and the other uses that function to enhance an effect. It was perhaps a poor choice of words in this case.

Melting aluminum is not very remarkable

Melted aluminum with demonstrably insufficient fuel and heat is. You keep ignoring and misunderstanding that fact. And it is a fact. I've tried to explain it to you using a thermodynamic argument, but your knowledge is insufficient to understand it would seem, so you brush it aside as irrelevant.

Your "supposition" is based only on imagination.

Not true. I have given argument and evidence. You ignore that argument and evidence. You imagine that there can't be anything outside of your sphere of experience, and that is what you base your argument on.

And then the obligatory name-calling.

The only "name calling" I did was to state that I thought you were an agent provocateur. I still think that is possible, but I never based my argument on it, nor did I make the claim for the purpose of name calling, but to show you how you act like one. You on the other hand can't help but name call/ad hominem. It's a fundamental part of every single response: As just one of numerous examples:

the rational public dismissing you as "conspiracy theorists."

No one is doing that but you, and I do not consider you to be rational, rather I consider you to believe and trust in your own knowledge beyond what is rational given the circumstances.

For example, if there are indeed technologies that can warp space, as the evidence suggests, making a lens out of spacetime is possible. You could make one of any size. You could argue that the "energy would be astronomical" and I would argue that you should be right based on everything I know, except somehow they appear to be doing it with little flying saucers.

My thesis was in GR on solutions to the Alcubierre Metric ("warp drive"). Warping spacetime based on what we know is not possible. Not only does it require "negative matter" to expand space, the energy requirements are ludicrous, even in the best possible scenario (at least based on all of the solutions I know about). If space time is indeed being warped by vessels 30 ft in diameter (or whatever size they are) then we pretty much need to throw everything we know out the window and start over.

You are not willing to even consider that your understanding of what is possible is wrong. My primary argument is not for microwaves, or dual laser systems or whatever, my primary argument is that a wheel melting by a fire alone without enough fuel and and no kiln while connected to ground (thermal ground) is impossible. This didn't just happen once. It has been happening all over the place in these "Crazy never seen before wild fires" for the past 5 years or so, and not before.

That is extremely good evidence that something is going on that is outside of what we would otherwise think is possible.

From metal 3D printing I know something about melting metal from microwaves, so that is where I looked. The solar energy collector I looked up used not completely dissimilar technology so that reinforced my ideas. I know it's not impossible, though I haven't actually worked out the optical requirements from geostationary orbit (or even just high altitude) to see how plausible it is based on known technology. I'd have to dig in, and I appreciate that you have given your estimate. There is more than one way to skin an optical cat however, and who knows what techniques have been employed.

You aren't willing to ask that question.

Under the circumstances, that is not rational.

It's that you are simply ignorant of the history of this technology

I was well aware of the origins of the maser and laser prior to your lecture. You assume I was ignorant because I wasn't using the words you wanted. That was an assumption that was false (like so many).

the accepted terminology in this field of endeavor.

OK, maybe in laser engineering, but in the field of physics, where I have used and built lasers, we use the word "laser" to indicate a laser, regardless of frequency (or wavelength if you prefer).

It is what it is.

and optical wavelengths do not "couple" (whatever you think that to mean)

Technologically they couple, not optically. One performs one function, and the other uses that function to enhance an effect. It was perhaps a poor choice of words in this case.

Melting aluminum is not very remarkable

Melted aluminum with demonstrably insufficient fuel and heat is. You keep ignoring and misunderstanding that fact. And it is a fact. I've tried to explain it to you using a thermodynamic argument, but your knowledge is insufficient to understand it would seem, so you brush it aside as irrelevant.

Your "supposition" is based only on imagination.

Not true. I have given argument and evidence. You ignore that argument and evidence. You imagine that there can't be anything outside of your sphere of experience, and that is what you base your argument on.

And then the obligatory name-calling.

The only "name calling" I did was to state that I thought you were an agent provocateur. I still think that is possible, but I never based my argument on it, nor did I make the claim for the purpose of name calling, but to show you how you act like one. You on the other hand can't help but name call/ad hominem. It's a fundamental part of every single response: As just one of numerous examples:

the rational public dismissing you as "conspiracy theorists."

No one is doing that but you, and I do not consider you to be rational, rather I consider you to believe and trust in your own knowledge beyond what is rational given the circumstances.

For example, if there are indeed technologies that can warp space, as the evidence suggests, making a lens out of spacetime is possible. You could make one of any size. You could argue that the "energy would be astronomical" and I would argue that you should be right based on everything I know, except somehow they appear to be doing it with little flying saucers.

My thesis was in GR on solutions to the Alcubierre Metric ("warp drive"). Warping spacetime based on what we know is not possible. Not only does it require "negative matter" to expand space, the energy requirements are ludicrous, even in the best possible scenario. If space time is indeed being warped by vessels 30 ft in diameter (or whatever size they are) then we pretty much need to throw everything we know out the window and start over.

You are not willing to even consider that your understanding of what is possible is wrong. My primary argument is not for microwaves, or dual laser systems or whatever, my primary argument is that a wheel melting by a fire alone without enough fuel and and no kiln while connected to ground (thermal ground) is impossible. This didn't just happen once. It has been happening all over the place in these "Crazy never seen before wild fires" for the past 5 years or so, and not before.

That is extremely good evidence that something is going on that is outside of what we would otherwise think is possible.

From metal 3D printing I know something about melting metal from microwaves, so that is where I looked. The solar energy collector I looked up used not completely dissimilar technology so that reinforced my ideas. I know it's not impossible, though I haven't actually worked out the optical requirements from geostationary orbit (or even just high altitude) to see how plausible it is based on known technology. I'd have to dig in, and I appreciate that you have given your estimate. There is more than one way to skin an optical cat however, and who knows what techniques have been employed.

You aren't willing to ask that question.

Under the circumstances, that is not rational.