Mikey boy strikes back

In a letter to the chief pseudo scientist RCH on which I was cc'd Bara wrote:





"Derek loony-tunes response to my latest dismantling of poor, hapless Stuart Robbins. He's so lame he can't even address the issues in my post. I mean, is he seriously challenging me to a duel or something?




You notice how these clowns never actually try and refute the evidence at hand? They just change the subject and pretend they didn't pwned.


What a nut..."


In response to my email below:





Hi Mike,

I notice that you make reference to protocols in your latest bloggery. Scientific protocols. Are you aware that your friend and former co-author RCH has never ONCE met the rigorous protocols required by the scientific method in his torsion field experiments.

NO baseline
NO control
NO raw data released
Off scale graphs
NO calibration

Dr Robbins outlined very well on his site how such an experiment should be set up. You, and Richard, would do well to read it. If those criteria were met, then perhaps real engineers and scientists like myself and Dr Robbins would take note.
If you really were an engineer like you claim (incidentally I don't believe that for a nano second) you would realise that Hoagland's experiments are worthless.

Oh and loved the claim that having a tattoo makes you more badass. In fact I am still laughing. Perhaps you could be more badass scientifically rather than pretending to be some tough guy. Which you clearly are not.

That whole diatribe about Dr Robbins was very telling Mikey. I think you lack confidence in a seriously debilitating way. Causing you to strike out with pathetic high school level insults instead of debate.

One of your best yet was saying on radio, "I think Von Braun snuck in a couple of extra terms into the equation without anyone noticing." What utter nonsense, and further proof of the fact you are no more an engineer than I am Elvis.

Utterly pathetic.

Just in case I don't manage to make one of your lectures in the US next year. Do you have any plans to come to Britain. I'd really love to have a little chat one on one Mike to discuss our scientific differences. Anywhere anytime just you and me. I'm guessing you don't have the balls for that. Prove me wrong Mr Badass.

Kindest Regards
DJE


Followed up by:










Hi Mike,


Thanks for the reply.

I have asked you many times to debate me 1v1. You have never accepted. This is not dueling. I have challenged you on many issues, none of which you will debate with me. Please re-read your diatribe against Dr Robbins. Count the insults directed at him by you. I think the loathing is coming from your direction Mike.


I maintain you do not have the balls to debate me. All those "typos" you claim are not typos. You were simply wrong and are trying to wriggle out. I'm curious to hear how you will wriggle out of asserting that light can penetrate our deepest oceans, be reflected off the ocean bed and back into space. Why don't we use that as a debate starting point ?

Kindest Regards

DJE


AND:


Hi Mike,

Since you have deemed me "too unimportant" to debate. Perhaps you would care to read the below quote:

Light absorption in the sea reduces the amount of visible light rapidly with depth.


Also note that absorption is greatest for the long wavelengths of light (measured in millionths of a meter or in microns " µ ") and somewhat less so for shorter wavelengths of light.




The colors that you can see beneath the sea depend on the wavelength of light available to illuminate an object.

A common observation is that a white plate will appear light blue underwater, because the long wavelengths of light, which include the red colors, have been absorbed in the surface water and only shorter wavelengths of light associated with blue colors remain to illuminate underwater objects.Also, the intensity of this light decreases rapidly with water depth, for example,


only 73% of the surface light reaches a depth of 1 centimeter (less than a half inch)
only 44.5% of the surface light reaches a depth of 1 meter (3.3 feet)
22.2% of the surface light reaches a depth of 10 meters (33 feet)
0.53% of the surface light reaches a depth of 100 meters (330 feet)
0.0062% of the surface light reaches a depth of 200 meters


Bottom line -- most of the light is absorbed or scattered within the top few meters of the ocean.

Indeed by 100 to 200 meters deep, virtually all of the solar radiation has been absorbed......remember that the abyssal plains, which cover the vast majority of the ocean basin, are between 4000 and 5500 meters deep, consequently the vast majority of the ocean is dark and cold!!!.

[Source: HERE]

How do you reconcile the above with what you wrote....

"the clouds are the highest in the atmosphere, meaning that they are reflecting more light back to the camera and at a faster rate. Since they are returning more light, the clouds are the lightest. The surface areas ... are darker, because they are a bit further away from the camera than the clouds and therefore the light has to travel further before it is reflected back. The deep blue oceans are therefore the darkest, because the light has to travel all the way to the ocean floor before it is reflected back to the camera."


Shouldn't you now apologise for being wrong and issue a retraction. I don't think you will get away with calling the above nonsense YET ANOTHER typo.


Don't these publishers ever employ fact checkers, technical editors, something, anything, to weed out codswallop. Bullseye for you Mike, apparently they do not. Fortunately there are publishers who do. Unfortunately for you they would never be associated with the tripe you have penned in the past. Must do better, try harder, perhaps you will wise up and start actually checking "facts" before simply making them up.

The real reason you won't debate me is that you are terrified of being exposed as the sciolist you are. It has nothing to do with my importance or lack of it.

Using ad hominem as you are wont to resort to when cornered like a weasel really displays your lack of knowledge and personal insecurity. You pander to the gullible and daft with "witty insults" and nothing substantial to back up your claims.



The eccentricity of Mars' orbit is a classic example. You are 100% wrong, yet still claim to be right. Do the maths Mikey. Calculate the max/min distance to Earth from Mars if Mars had a perfectly circular orbit. Go on, do it. If you can. Your argument falls flat on it's arse right there.


All that aside. I really cannot wait to hear how you weasel out of the "light and oceans" disgrace. Oh, and I'm still waiting for you to prove there are no such things as the laws of physics. I am sure you remember making that claim.

Kindest Regards to you and your "internet wife."

DJE






He will not of course reply and address the issues. More likely call me a homo and run like a chicken from debate. Fucking arsehole.