🚀 go-pugleaf

markpalenik@wideopenwest.com (Mark Palenik) wrote in message news:<2d97f586.0405101142.408ac777@posting.google.com>...
> dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnc9u3sp.8el.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> > 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.
> >  
> 
> I looked at his site, and found formula 26 on p. 19
> 
> it is:
> 
> phi = q/(4*pi*EpsilonNaut)*(e^(-j*k*r1)/r1 - e^(-j*k*r2)/r2)*e^(j*w*t)
> 
> My guess is, that if he sais curl(grad(phi)) =/= 0, he messed up
> something with the jacobian.  Of course, you could take
> curl(grad(phi)) without the jacobian, which would equal zero, but if
> we want to be physical about it, we'd have to apply it.  My guess is
> that the math was a bit too tricky for him and he screwed up
> somewhere.
> 
> I'm also confused as to what j and k are.  Are they variables? 
> Constants?
> 
> In any event, curl(grad(phi)) does equal zero, no matter how you look
> at it, if you do the calculations correctly.

Dear Mark,

First of all I would like to mention that your colleagues manner to
accuse others of ignorance instead to grasp only shows your own
limitedness. I multiply wrote in the newsgroups, it is a true trouble
of "new mathematics" of Relativity and QM that, being keen on
shuffling symbols, colleagues fully loss the idea of physics of
processes. There is no difference between the Jacobian and vector
analysis, Jacobian gives the same result. But when you were trying
simply to operate with symbols curl(grad(phi))  and do not consider,
what is in the essence the very function phi, you naturally can
understand and determine nothing.

Judging by your post, though you opened our paper, but without
attention. In the page 21 we derived the condition under which the
curl of gradient of dynamic potential does not vanish. You can
disprove it by the only way - disproving our theorem of curl of
potential vector (see the reference in the end of paper).

However here also are nuances much deeper than conventional Maxwellian
formalism. Should we abstract from your colleagues habit to shuffle
the symbols and pay our attention to the pattern of gradient of
function (26), we can see that generally it has not only tangential
but also radial component. If we go in standard way and, immediately
at the stage of finding the gradient, limit ourselves to the region of
normal to the axis of charges, only tangential component will remain
on the normal, and its curl will not be zero (you can check ;-) ). But
in general case we see other pattern. It appears that in general case
the radial component depends on azimuth angle (!), due to which the
circulation excited by radial and tangential components compensates.
Our theorem of curl does not account this nuance, as it does not
consider simultaneous radial and tangential variation of vector, but
considers only the flux of vector. This evidences that there has to
exist a more general theorem of curl which would take this feature
into account. Just this explains the discrepancy between the
derivation shown in our paper and your colleagues pure formal
approach.

It would be enough to think that here the radial component of gradient
takes so great part, to understand, this is well farther than
Maxwellian formalism and well deeper than the phenomenology of
processes at which the supporters of Relativity and QM have stopped.
And though it causes them diarrhoea, this is the point.

The situation will change when the dipole charges finitely
counter-oscillate as to their common axis. With it there takes place a
considerable disbalance between the radial and tangential components.
There also are problems. But anyway, this is already not Maxwellian
formalism. The very fact confirms it that these dandies agreed to
begin the building of formalism with scalar potential. As you well
know of course, scalar potential in the existing formalism vanishes
under the calibration. In the new formalism it will take the key part.
Not in vain in the electromechanical analogy the scalar potential
corresponds to the mass displacement in mechanical system.

Thus, not you colleagues will judge, do I know something or not. You
want to go on shuffling symbols - please do so. We can solve nothing
by conflicting. We can not achieve the understanding in this way, I
can say it for sure. Indeed, any development does not give all at once
and easily. But the very fact that many researchers already take our
developments to their lexicon, the very fact that even Maxwellian
formalism they now estimate in other scale and try to find in this
formalism the preliminary outline of our results, evidences that we
took a proper trend. And we will go on, irrespectively of, who and
which conflicts will fabric around us.

Sergey