🚀 go-pugleaf

"Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<oxbDc.166671$bY5.8420486@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <selftrans@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.0406251333.2a755523@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvandemoortel@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<2G2Bc.160739$5a2.8229936@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> 
> [snip]
> 
> > > How does it feel to find out, after having gone through all that
> > > trouble to write 10KB worth of probably nothing, that no one
> > > has even looked at it?
> > >
> > > Dirk Vdm
> >
> > Dirk, it does not hurt me, whether you have read what you snipped. I
> > know one thing: before I wrote what you snipped, it was your great
> > pleasure to run through threads crying about "famous Russian non-zero
> > curl of gradient". Now you have shut up. This evidences, you
> > understood well what you snipped, and snipped because understood. We
> > never had a constructive dialogue with you because of your limitedness
> > and arrogance, and I never expected a good talk from you.
> 
> Our entire constructive (at least of my part) dialogue is in this single
> exchange:
>   http://groups.google.com/groups?&as_umsgid=Br%_b.1050$QY6.196@news.cpqcorp.net
> Which is mathematical proof of the fact that you are either extremely
> shortsighted, or playing a malicious little game.
> 
> > You want to
> > insist - insist, uninteresting for you - don't read. Will you fling
> > mud at me - you will drink it. Then think as you want, I said my all.
> 
> So have I, with these words:
>    |   "You have swapped the two angular coordinates between
>    |    applying grad and curl. Check it."
> 
> Dirk Vdm


This is what about I'm just saying, Dirk: with such limited person as
you the discussions are useless. Just now: what about was that
discussion which you transferred to this thread? It was about the curl
of gradient. In my recent post I showed you, this problem is much
deeper than you can think. Had you a wish to understand something?
Nothing of the kind. You said, you snipped it unread, and concentrated
your efforts on stinging me on the point inessential for the main
issue. This point is really inessential, because it in no way can
affect the essence of our theorems proven for vector analysis. Have
you any claims to these theorems? I did not hear from you such claims,
and hardly will hear something articulate. While the divergence
theorem has passed the international peer review, and even such
violent opponents as Bilge and Franz Heymann have recognised this
theorem. Have you any achievements of such level? No, and never will
have, as the ability to a thoughtful analysis is not the merit of
yours. Your ability is to seek trifles and to make an alarm about the
things irrelevant to the main subject. This is simply a mud for the
sake of mud, you are all round in this mud, as your last posts
confirm. You and such like you are not interesting in the essence of
subject. You come to the newsgroups with the only aim - to chatter the
subject and to mud the author. You are accusing the author that he is
a troll. But these are just you who trolls the authors. In such way
you are trying to retain at least the remnants of putrid building of
QM, QED, SR, GR. You are ready for any forgery for the sake of your
group interests. You kicked up a racket because of coefficient. Have
you claims to our theorem of dynamic gradient? No, or you would not
snip so demonstratively my phrase that, having admitted the dynamic
scalar potential, you all go straight to admit this theorem. You
understood it all, and you admitted the main - the dynamic pattern of
scalar potential. In comparison with it, the coefficient which you are
trolling is not worthy of a brass farting. But you are ready for the
sake of group interests to trample any knowledge. This is why you are
fruitless! Whilst the dynamic field of proton and of nuclei of spiral
galaxies immediately follows from the dynamic pattern of scalar
potential. We have it rigorously proven and corroborated on the
observed galaxies in the paper which you, as you said, do not want to
read as the matter of principle. The solution of centurial paradox
also follows from this. This the highest level for the physicist. And
we have done much at this level. With all mathematical rigour we have
resolved the infinite system of differential equations for dynamic
systems. We have created the methodology to yield exact analytic
solutions for chains of any number of elastically constrained masses -
for any chains: ideal and resistant-constraint, homogeneous and
heterogeneous, bended, closed, under affection of any kind of force,
inclined and dynamic in that number, for linear and nonlinear systems.
This is a full complex of highly complicated problems unachievable for
today dynamics. We have learned to work with mismatched ladder
filters. All our theoretical developments perfectly fit to the
experimental check. We have produced longitudinal EM and transverse
acoustic waves. We have developed the new mathematical tool of dynamic
non-conformal mapping. With its help we provided complicated maps and
described complicated motions of particles called now chaos; as a
simple example of application of this tool we solved Bessel equation
to which the science had no approach about 170 years. We explained the
magnetic field of stars and galaxies and its part in formation and
evolution of celestial bodies. Now before your dishonest eyes we
solved the problem with which great Bohr was unable to cope - we have
coped. We lifted the problem of Hubble red shift and solved the
Schwarzschild paradox having proved no black holes in nature. And
further you will see multitude of new powerful solutions. You will
never yield such solutions, the more so much fitting to the
observations and experiments - thus, all your attempts to annihilate
our results are vain. We have them already yielded and they work. And
these are already not particular solutions, this is the complex
growing into the powerful paradigm of classical physics - just the
physics about which you permanently say that it is unable to solve the
problems of such level. And when you react to our announcements with
boorishness, it only corroborates: you understand the meaning and
level of our results and that they are true. This is why in parallel
with our thread you supporters of relativistic theories always start
another thread on the same subject or several threads on different
aspects of our subject and try to yield the same results in frames of
your theories. Just now three threads were opened:

Radius of electron
alt.sci.physics.new-theories, sci.physics, sci.physics.electromag,
sci.physics.relativity
Date: 2004-06-22 01:33:16 PST
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=ru&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=2jrd0bF14v9sbU1%40uni-berlin.de&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Dru%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.physics

QM and electron orbits 
sci.astro, sci.physics
Date: 2004-05-28 18:20:27 PST 
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=ru&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=cb6j7m%24q93%241%40news.urz.uni-heidelberg.de&prev=/groups%3Fdq%3D%26num%3D25%26hl%3Dru%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.physics%26start%3D75

Dayton Miller's data  
sci.physics
Date: 2004-06-21 01:27:01 PST
http://groups.google.com/groups?dq=&hl=ru&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=10dgs7a5h8gfjb1%40corp.supernews.com&prev=/groups%3Fhl%3Dru%26lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26group%3Dsci.physics

Our experience says, all such attempts result only with a scandal
among the participants. The experience is quite strong thing. It says,
it is not a way to ignore the author, it is impossible to replicate
the author's work. See, a half of a year ago you agreed with dynamic
pattern of scalar potential. And what of it? Have you done any further
step? While we are finishing a third paper and further have multitude
of new materials. Because one aspect of new knowledge which we showed
you does not give you the possibility to develop the full amount of
this knowledge. You need a very long time to follow this way, and only
under condition that you will not hate the author or envy him. You can
shorten this way only having recognised the author and absorbing the
utmost amount of new knowledge and branching of existing knowledge.
You trolls cannot understand it.

Note, you are quarrelling on the thread devoted to spiral arms of atom
and galaxy. Have you any claims to this paper? I do not hear. You
don't want to read? I said you already, don't want - don't read, but
what you are writing here is irrelevant to the subject, it only speaks
of your aim to troll the new, as your theories cannot compete. Long
time try, absolutely cannot. This is all of you.

Sergey