🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<zKSxc.150585$SN3.7650418@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.0406091401.258ada05@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>  news:<Ylgwc.144917$6P6.7471195@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.0406041517.1baabf02@posting.google.com...
> > > > Dear Colleagues,
> > > >
> > > > We published a new paper
> > >
> > > Does it use your World Famous Russian Non-Zero Curl(Grad(phi))
> > > again?
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > It's so nice that you came to this thread with this question. I just
> > wanted to return to that unfinished subject - divergence. I found your
> > mistake.
> 
> HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
> 
> Dirk Vdm

Dear Dirk,

By some reason we never have a possibility to have discussed finally.
You are sure that I was wrong when found the curl of gradient of
scalar potential, so you are trying to put to the ground the results
of our theorem of dynamic gradient. But do not hurry.

Let us first try to do not narrow our outlook to the curl of gradient
of scalar potential , let us consider wider. Consider some sequence of
corollaries coming from your admittance of dynamic scalar potential.

1. I wrote you this item in my previous post. See, having agreed with
the idea that the scalar potential is a time-dependent function and
even has a delay phase, you automatically left the Maxwellian
formalism. Actually, should the scalar potential be written down in my
version of radial component either in your version of radial and
tangential component, it anyway already cannot be equalised to zero by
calibration. So we already have no right to write down

E =  - (1/c)(deA/det)  (1)

where de denotes the particular derivative. We must write in a full
form

E =  - (1/c)(deA/det) - grad phi  (2)

and we can pass to the next item.

2. Now consider (2) for the electric field strength. Its right-hand
part contains two summands, which, according to our item 1, do not
vanish in dynamic fields. Fine. We have the second summand more or
less clear. In static fields the gradient determines the force of
charge affection on the trial body in the field of this force. In
transition to dynamic fields, equipotential lines of charge transform
and the delay phase arises. For pulsing dipoles we showed it in our
paper on dynamic dipoles

http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/dipole/d12/d12.html

The deformation of field arising due to charge motion has been
analysed in the paper advertised in this thread. Here things are more
or less clear. And I can mark, in case of moving charge the scalar
potential in fact describes the field of current! You cannot disagree,
as, pointing me that in the problem of radiation of an element of
current this potential depends on two variables, you already agreed
with this feature of scalar potential.

Well, what is it - vector potential? On one hand, it is determined
through the delaying potentials of elementary current by
Lienard-Wiechert. On the other, the relation

phi = An  ,   (3)

where n is the unit vector of direction of wave propagation, is true.
So it appears that by all parameters the vector potential is a part of
scalar potential - just the addition which appears in the expression
for gradient of scalar potential in case of dynamic source of the
field. When we understand it, we in well-ordered lines come to the
theorem of dynamic gradient which we proved and which you are trying
to disprove. It also follows from it that, disproving the conclusions
of this theorem, you, along the back chain of logic proof which I gave
here, come to the statement that scalar potential has not to have the
delay phase and cannot depend on time. But if so, according to (3),
the vector potential also has not to have these regularities. It
immediately follows from it that on one hand you can apply the
calibration and equalise the scalar potential to zero, but on the
other hand in accordance with (2) the electric field strength will be
strongly zero! You see, what a strong connection: you touch one thing,
and this tows a very long turn of consequences.

But if you retain the dynamic pattern of scalar potential, you will
straight come to the fact that in reality the electric field strength
is determined by the regularity

E = - Grad phi  (4)

- i.e., just as we showed it in our paper on gradient of dynamic
scalar potential. Have you any opposition? ;-)

3. Now, approaching the essence of curl of gradient of scalar
potential, we have to make clear two directions. On one hand, for
dynamic scalar potential the curl of gradient is actually identically
zero. But this is not the potential which we know from the standard
formalism. This is the dynamic scalar potential whose each projection
has the wave properties. From it, there follows another side of the
problem. Draw your attention that the strength of magnetic field is
determined as

H = curl A (5)

In other words, when we determined the dynamic electric field, we also
write it down as (1), i.e., we also take into account only the dynamic
part of gradient. With it, if we approach without any bias the general
equation for electric field strength in the form (4) and try to
determine its curl, ... yes, we will yield zero! Good-bye, the great
guess by Maxwell - Faraday of magnetic field induction. ;-)

Thus, far from all is so simple and unambiguous in this kingdom. Too
many discrepancies still exist in Maxwellian formalism, one paper is
not able to lift them all. This is the fact that even after we have
published a number of papers on the subject, there remained too many
problems which require to be solved, and we in no way claim that we
have done everything in this area of knowledge. But all these problems
are of higher level than they have been described in the standard
formalism. Of course, it is much simpler to disregard these
discrepancies in Maxwellian formalism, confining your research area to
a narrow circle of problems, as if everything is okay. Though, as we
showed in our papers, the discrepancies do exist, and our decision, to
see them either to ignore, depends only on, how thorough and unbiased
researchers we are.

4. Again, note: agreeing that the scalar potential depends on time and
has the delay phase in space, you are agreeing that the gradient of
this potential has a radial component which remains also in the far
field and has the wave pattern. With it the divergence of vector E in
the form (2) will not vanish. Having checked it, you will make sure,
you in this way admit the existence of longitudinal EM wave which the
Maxwellian formalism basically denies.

I can continue these items on and on. And the further the more you
will leave the views of standard formalism. Now answer to yourself:
well, what are you defending? Maxwellian formalism? Admitting the wave
pattern of scalar potential, you already have agreed that this
formalism is incorrect. Do you want to prove me that just the curl of
gradient of scalar potential is identically zero? But don't forget,
you may not rely on the formalism which you already have rejected. And
the fact that you meanwhile do not tell yourself sincerely that you
have rejected - does not matter already. You have admitted the wave
pattern of scalar potential and in this way fully crossed out the
standard formalism.

But if speaking, what has be the new formalism, this is not the case
to write me "World Famous Russian Non-Zero Curl(Grad(phi))." You are
playing already on the other field, don't forget it. Here are other
regularities, and the fact that I still did not show you them
completely does not mean that you have a right to be sarcastic with
me. It is so easy to mock but so hard to develop. And don't forget one
more thing, in this new field of knowledge you are aware well less
than me. So, if you want to participate in development, let us analyse
and advance to the new area without sarcasm. But if you don't care of
the essence and rigour of EM theory, please stand aside on the
diverging ice-floes of conventional formalism and don't impede.
Gradually all difficult points will be got over and the ice-floes will
finally diverge, be sure. The only thing, you will have no concern to
this new formalism, but these are only your decision and difficulties,
aren't they? ;-) And only you can decide, to read or not to read our
papers and to fly or not to fly away from topical points.

Sergey