Quote:
Originally Posted by Vman455
JulianEdgar hasn't been posturing; he's called you out on a lot of the BS you've been spewing which everyone here (including myself) have been caught up in for quite some time. Quite the contrary: he has consistently maintained, since his arrival on this forum, that we should be TESTING, observing, and experimenting. More than once he has posted that we SHOULD NOT take his word for it, but test, measure, and observe for ourselves. You have responded, consistently, with vitriol, name-calling, and, now, disgusting metaphors. You've set a new low bar.
* * * * *
Back on topic. My copy of Road Vehicle Aerodynamic Design, 3rd ed. (2009), just arrived a few minutes ago. Food for thought--literally the first sentence of Chapter 1:
(emphasis added)
|
Fine! If your a man, and a gentleman, you'll spare the personal judgement for another venue, and scientifically prove your thesis. And I recommend fluid mechanics.
Our reference materials are created such that no former research is repeated. No unnecessary redundancy. The last time I looked, The United States was still capitalistic. Citizens spend a fortune on higher learning so they don't fall into the trap of repeating former investigations, moving on to more prosperous enterprise.
If you've completely discounted the value of your time, that's fine. But to presume that I've nothing better to do with my life other than tilting at windmills with a Pitot-tube and Magnehelic you're extremely mistaken.
I didn't set land speed and distance records by reinvestigating every experiment conducted globally over the last 100-years.
If you sincerely believe that the fundamentals have all been superannuated since 1986, I invite you to shine some light on that. And be specific!
That WOULD be an extremely valuable contribution.