Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
You don't have enough education to be able to discern one way or another. What you believe means nothing to me. It's belief. Belief and science are not bedfellows. You're not arguing factually. You can no longer give it the time. Although you have endless time for non-constructive criticism. You can't even get the nomenclature correct. You lack fundamentals. Fundamentals don't change.
Some of the things you say are correct within a certain context, however you try to pass it off as a universal absolute. Even Ayn Rand would argue against your brand of 'logic.'
You're wrong about wind tunnels.
You're wrong about rotating wheels.
You're wrong about the 'template.'
Evidence doesn't appear to mean anything to you.
You're measurements are typically contextual.
You cherry-pick Hucho.
When I present Hucho's counterfactual evidence to one of your claims all I get is crickets.
If you want to discuss intellectual dishonesty, well , you wrote the book.
Book sales ahead of all else! Hucksterism reigns supreme. Buy my books! Buy my books! By my Books!
Your a real piece of work!
Man see's what he wants to see.
|
You didn't address even one of my points, as usual. So maybe let's try again?
You wrote:
Quote:
Originally Posted by aerohead
* It goes back to the fluid mechanics ground rules Hucho wrote about :
' the essential experimental results, presented as ground rules of fluid mechanics and brought to general validity wherever possible;'
Hucho, page one of he Preface
* fundamentals are fundamentals.
* it's the whole point of his book!
* and I promise to continue whenever something dovetails into what's already established in the public domain.  |
It's a fallacious, superficial argument premised - as so many of yours unfortunately are - on a rather literal and/or simplistic understanding of what is being discussed.
The rules of thermodynamics haven't changed in 100+ years - but today we don't design engines like those of the 1930s, or even 1960s or 1980s.
The rules of resonant mechanical systems haven't changed in 100+ years - but today we don't design suspension systems like those of the 1930s, or even 1960s or 1980s.
But I for one, will always keep reading historic documents on engine and suspension design - and aerodynamics - because I think the historic context informs current thinking.
But it's a completely different thing to think that it should dictate current thinking.
If you presented historic examples in the context of 'hey, look at this - isn't it interesting?' I'd be applauding what you do. But you don't - you pretend (or even believe?) that this history should be directing what we do now - and that is just ridiculous.
Your approach has unfortunately led you to have lots of mistaken beliefs about what is happening with airflow on current cars and then to - unforgivably* - advise people based on those erroneous beliefs. And you have been very successful - I can see time and time again people on this group parroting the falsehoods you have disseminated.
(*I don't care what you believe - lots of people believe all sorts of weird stuff. But I do care when you are leading others astray based on your incorrect beliefs.)