Yes, if you don't jump through all the hoops of Greek codegolf, memorizing dead mathematicians names and ingesting all the generational cruft, you don't deserve to create anything useful.
I'm so tired of this attitude.
I'm so tired of this attitude.
If you write a 10 page article about using some-framework-or-other, and you invent your own terminology and can't even be bothered write the name correctly of what you're writing about, that's not a good sign in my book. Doesn't matter when it was invented/developed/released.
And that's on top of the plainly wrong statements in the article.
I happen to be a technical artist, and the first rule of technical art is: cheat. If this upsets physicists and mathematicians, they completely miss the point of the entire endeavor.
Math and physics are merely tools to achieve the end result, not a goal unto themselves.
I'll take a wild guess here that your technical artistry isn't in the field of fluid mechanics. There is a whole, very mature, very developed, field of fluid dynamics for visualizations out there. Just check out what people present at SIGGRAPH every year. It's amazing. They know exactly what they're doing. The thing with the visualization of many physical systems is that humans are really good at spotting discrepancies, e.g. if things don't bounce off well, or the smoke looks like honey - then it just looks really bad (like my blended face drawings) - but producing bad results doesn't automatically make me a great artist.