🚀 go-pugleaf

Sergey Karavashkin, mudozvon, said:

 >>  >Well then, what for do you ask me for this function if you insistently
 >>  >don't want to see it?
 >>  
 >>   Post it and I'll see it.
 >
 >
 >First of all, Bilge, here is not a restaurant, and I'm not a waiter.
 
  Then stop complaining about not receiving a fair assessment of
a meal you refuse to provide.

 >You are allegedly saying that I have not the formula on whose basis I
 >built the animation for Franz. I have kept my word and presented you
 >this formula.
 
  Where? You have spent this entire thread making excuses for not
providing it. I'd request that you provide the message-id in which
you posted the formulay you claim you have provided, but that would
only serve to digress along another tangent of excuses regarding the
message-id.
 
 >Not simply a formula, but with all necessary
 >substantiation. But you want me to write it here, without
 >substantiation.

  Yes. I want you to write it here, since I've already proved the
mathematical identity which demonstrates that the curl of a gradient
of a scalar is zero. Since you disagree with what _I_ have posted
as proof that you're wrong, I expect you to post the function
which proves you are not.
 
 >However you are not the person who will discuss in frames of scientific
 >ethics. You never were interested to grasp the truth. You know it well!
 >You are unscrupulous in the issues of plagiarism, consciousness, decency.

  You have the same delusions of grandeur as most every other crackpot.
Sorry, but asking you to support your assertions is not a violation
of ethics. What is an ethical issue is your propensity to make un-
substantiated allegations and blatantly false statements in order to
take the focus off of your inability to support your pseudoscientific
assertions.

 >Of course, you are not happy that my formula describes the process
 >in the way you don't like.
 
  I fail to see what happiness has to do with your failure to support
your own claims or your attempts to recast my request for you to do
into a question of ethics.

 >But I cannot help you here.

  I'm sure you can't. If you could have supplied such a function,
I have no doubt that you would have done so, if for no other reason
than to try and validate your allegations about me above. The fact
that you would be passing up an opportunity to do that is an even
more compelling reason to dismiss you as a loon.

 >The formula exists, it has been derived on the basis of standard
 >mathematical formalism.

  But, let me guess. It loses something in the translation to
any standard mathematics familiar to someone other than yourself.

 >You well understood it. See,
 >you don't try to state zero the circulation over the selected loop,
 >and this is a great progress for you. At due time you attempted to
 >deny the Fourier expansion. ;-)
 
  I've never denied the fourier expansion, you moron. You seem to
have a real problem defending your own claims without having to
make false statements about anyone who asks you to prove them.