This thread leans away from any semi-tangible topic and becomes a playground for challenging opponent’s personality. Somehow, it started being about formal education credentials. How? Why? What does it have to do with anything? It would be better to stick to the matter discussed than to look for the ways to discredit the opponent as a person. Once one’s argument, about why someone else’s argument is weaker than his own, becomes formal education level and not what was said about the topic itself, that one’s argument may seem as being weak and needing help for the way out of defeat.
>>>>This particular argument is simply a discussion about what an engineer is. And to a certain extent whether traffic engineering courses really involve fluid dynamics and rocket science, which most likely they actually don’t. We’re trying to establish who’s fluffing and who’s bluffing. I actually took a course in the Civil Engineering wing at school, Indeterminant Structures. If amg46 took THAT course I will give him credit.
More specifically and germane to the topic at hand I actually apply engineering principles to my hobby, from fluid dynamics to quantum physics to classical physics/mechanics to optics to long distance communications. I employ empirical testing and the scientific method. I have around twenty (count em) new products since 2012. Five of them involve quantum physics/mechanics. As Fats Domino used to sing, I’m walkin’, yes indeed and I’m talkin’....
Besides, we’ve already agreed air is not flowing in the room so linking traffic engineering to fluid dynamics and cars to air molecules is not only tenuous but also irrelevant.