🚀 go-pugleaf

"Mark Palenik" <markpalenik@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:<Oa6dnTGELY-gRMXdRVn_iw@wideopenwest.com>...
> "Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
> news:slrnc54m9t.985.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> > Sergey Karavashkin:
> >  >dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:
>  
> >  >>
> >  >>   \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = e_ijk \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi
> >  >>
> >  >>                         = \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi - \nabla_j\nabla_i\Phi
> >  >>
> >  >>                         = (\nabla_i\nabla_j - \nabla_j\nabla_i)\Phi
> >  >>
> >  >>                         = 0
> >  >>
> >  >> Tell me. What's next on the selflab agenda? Do you plan to show that
> >  >> sin^2 + cos^2 != 1 for "dynamic fields"?
> >  >
> >  >Dear Bilge,
> >  >
> >  >For people defending not the objective truth but interests of definite
> >  >school, and defending by any price, our works really are only an
> >  >irritant.
> >
> >   It's a mathemaical identity, sergey. Rather than engage in a verbose
> > diatribe and rant about me being an irritant, why don't you simply
> > point out how that identity doesn't follow from the definitions of
> > the gradient and curl. Anything else is just a smokescreen.
> >
> 
> I almost replied pointing out that for a nonconservative vector field, the
> curl wouldn't be zero, but after reading Franz post, I see that Sergey
> claims curl(grad(phi)) can not equal zero, which is ridiculous, since the
> vector field is grad(f(x,y,z)), which immediately means it's conservative.
> By no stretch of the imagination is what he's stating possible, regardless
> of how physics works.


Dear Mark, you are some inexact in what I'm stating. When speaking
with Franz, I unambiguously considered dynamic fields, and theorem of
curl of potential vector has been written just for dynamic fields. And
the animation which I presented to Franz also represents the dynamic
field. In our paper we clearly showed that in stationary fields for
potential vectors the curl is zero. It is non-zero for dynamic fields.
So let us laugh together that you understood it wrong. I will be very
grateful if you more literally read what I write.

Kind regards,
Sergey