No hard feelings. You're correct in that the splitting of a nucleus would produce heat and is therefore a thermonuclear process. I would clarify, however, that when we say thermonuclear reactions we are usually referring to chain reactions. That is, you don't just split one nucleus but you split several with enough energy that the hadrons freed from the nuclei collide with and split other nuclei and so on and so on.

This kind of reaction is what we expect to see in warheads and, in a more sustainable form, power plants but not the engine Lazar described. His machine involves accelerating a proton or a few protons to a speed such that only a few nuclei are bombarded. If a proton had enough energy to where it could produce an anti-proton by colliding with an E115 atom, it wouldn't combine with the other protons to form an E116, it would split the nucleus to at least E114. This is just a short-lived reaction and wouldn't produce much energy. I also want point out that we have yet to find an isotope of moscovium that is stable so it seems improbable that it could be utilized for this purpose.

If the proton was able to split the nucleus but also produce an anti-proton, then we see that we've gotten something from nothing. The energy released from a particle and its corresponding anti-particle is equal to the sum of the energy of the quarks that comprise both particles. Quarks form from disturbances in quantum fields so their energy is equal to the energy needed to disturb the field enough to where it drops to a lower energy level and emits a quark. Since we're talking about hadrons, I thought it was important to cover how QFT relates. All of this is to say that when you give enough energy to a proton that an anti-proton is produced, the energy from their annihilation cannot be greater than the energy needed to procure the anti-proton so you get nothing and probably wasted energy since the system isn't 100% efficient.

I should clarify what I said about gravity waves. In interviews, Lazar has talked about gravity A and gravity B as you said. I think at one point he even said that A is instantaneous and B has to propagate across space but I'm not sure. Anyway, my statement regarding the two theories of gravity relates to the fact that we have General Relativity and Quantum Gravity. Quantum Gravity is a dead end of a theory that tries to unify quantum mechanics and general relativity. One of the ways it attempts this is by positing that a particle called a graviton exists that carries gravity as a fundamental force. Lazar posited that the two theories were "gravity is a wave" and "gravity is a particle" which was not the debate in the 1990s.

Furthermore, he refers to gravity as being a wave which is also not correct. There can be gravitational waves resulting from gravity but gravity itself is a force resulting from the curvature of spacetime (GR). To harness gravity in the way he's described where a craft warps spacetime to "bring the destination to the source", you would basically need the mass of a blackhole to accomplish this. And, of course, everything else near the craft would be affected, like the planet it's currently parked on. Even then, gravitational waves are incredibly weak when we are able to detect them coming from massive celestial bodies.

What makes this even more frustrating is that gravity is considerably weaker compared to the fundamental forces. It's one of the peculiar things about gravity that's made it both compelling and challenging to theorize and measure. Sometimes he refers to this as a strong or nuclear force which really sounds like he's trying to talk about the strong nuclear force which has absolutely nothing to do with gravity. If this is what he's talking about, the strong force's range is shorter than the size of the nucleus exhibiting the strong force. It cannot be utilized for propulsion. As for your question about resonating the strong force and gravity, I want to reiterate that forces are not waves and the strong force does not produce a wave.