God Sarah I just looked at you pictures [sic] on your Facebook page. Please don't reproduce. You are just too ugly to be allowed to have children.Adrienne did, however, defend Mike's unwillingness to respond to the many criticisms of his "work." She posted this to FooBoo yesterday.
I don't think that Mike should be expected to repeat work that has already been done by Einstein, Kozyrev and DePalma. Mike is an engineer. As I understand it, engineering is the practical application of math and science to solve problems. Engineers test theories and then turn them into something practical that people can have access to and use. This is what Mike does. Of course, he understands the math. He's done the work he’s needed to do in order to reach his conclusions and because of his desire to share his knowledge and discoveries, he’s put his findings out there for everyone to see. By doing that he’s opened himself up to criticism, and that’s to be expected, but just because someone doesn’t understand something he has stated or they don't agree with a topic or concept of his, it doesn’t mean that he is obligated to explain it to them further.
The text was really addressed to Catriona, not me, so I didn't presume to respond directly. But this is what I would have written if it had been any of my business:
I accept your definition of what an engineer does. I merely wonder whether, in fact, your client has ever done it. A man who thinks that "astrology is a perfectly valid and defensible science" (The Choice, p.31) or that "Newton's laws of motion ... only work if the object being measured doesn't rotate" (The Choice, p.60) must be suspected of having a highly impractical view of the world and how it works. A man who has said he's an experienced jetliner designer (Shiny Side Out radio, 4th August) and yet makes a colossal error in a rather simple calculation of orbital mechanics (The Choice, whole of ch.12) must be suspected of self-delusion at the very least, and quite possibly of fraud. At any rate, I for one would not wish to step on board any jetliner he had designed — if, indeed, any such aircraft exists.
You write that "Of course, he understands the math." How do you know that, Adrienne? He has stated that "hyperdimensional physics" — a vaguely-expressed concept that your client and two other people in the entire world believe in — is based on Maxwell's original 20 quaternion equations. And yet, not once in all the writings and lectures of your client and his former co-author has any single one of those quaternions been used or even, as far as I know, mentioned. You'll have to forgive me if I'm a bit skeptical about your client's mathematical talent.
Your client, echoing Richard Hoagland almost word for word, has written (The Choice, p.47) that the following features are at a latitude of 19.5°:
Neptune's Great Dark Spot
The Great Red Spot of Jupiter
The erupting volcanoes of Jupiter's moon Io
Olympus Mons on Mars
Earth's own Maunakea volcano
This, he has told us, is evidence of this concept he calls "hyperdimensional physics." Well, Adrienne, do you know what? None of those features are actually at 19.5°. If he'd written Mauna Loa instead of Mauna Kea, he'd have got one right. Oh, I suppose some of the 400 volcanoes on Io are probably at 19.5° just by chance, but is that the foundation of a new branch of physics?
Bruce DePalma documented the fact that a rapidly-rotating sphere in air describes a higher arc when projected than a non-rotating one. Physicists (that's the collection of people your client calls "blithering idiots") would say that's a nice example of the Magnus Effect. You referred to this experiment in what you wrote on Facebook. Could you please cite any mathematical analysis of this phenomenon written by DePalma or Hoagland? Are you truly, truly, convinced that Mike Bara, in spite of being wrong about almost everything in physics and astronomy, understands the mathematics involved?
I suppose you're correct in writing that Mike has no obligation to answer follow-up questions from his readers. Perhaps, then, the best service you can offer him as manager at this point is to advise him not to respond at all, rather than to respond by insulting readers who are better qualified than him in physics and astronomy. Another service you could usefully deliver is to explain to your client that fact-checking, in these days of google and wikipedia, is so incredibly easy that it's well worth giving it a shot. And another is that juvenile web forums like Call of Duty Zombies are not really a reliable source of graphics for professional publication