🚀 go-pugleaf

selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0402081450.153f158a@posting.google.com>...
> thoovler@excite.com (Igor) wrote in message news:<d434b6c6.0402020056.7de6d18b@posting.google.com>...
> > selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0402011435.6e84feaa@posting.google.com>...
> > > Dear Colleagues,
> > > 
> > > We open the new volume 
> 
> [snip]
> > > 
> > > Please enjoy reading full text:
> > > 
> > > http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#grad
> > > 
> > > I hope, it will be interesting for many of you, and look forward to
> > > hear your opinion.
> > > 
> > > Sergey.
> > 
> > There seems to be a mistake on the first page, where you have a scalar
> > function dependent on both the radial coordinate and angle theta.  But
> > when you take the gradient, you only have a radial component but no
> > angular one.  This is why you're concluding that curl grad is not
> > zero, when, once you do it properly, it must be.  Curl grad must
> > always vanish regardless of the nature of the coordinate system.  It's
> > an elementary theorem of vector calculus.  I hope this has been
> > helpful.  Good luck.
> 
> 
> Dear Igor,
> 
> I understand you. You show the most typical reaction to this cycle of
> our papers: "Something is wrong! Where is the mistake?" Merely
> psychologically, you already do not consider how much logic is the
> proof, how much correct is mathematics, you only filter the material,
> seeking the trick.
> 
> You see the mistake in the formula for potential in the first page of
> paper. Let us think, from what are you concluding? That it is
> unobvious that the radial component MUST NOT be dependent on other
> parameters? Well, this is just unobvious. If you re-read the "New Year
> question from Leo" to which we refer, you will see, Leo suggested a
> standard problem - radiating element of current. This problem is
> axially symmetric, not centrally symmetric. On the other hand, the
> radial component can be independent of spherical angles only in case
> of central symmetry. You can make sure, reading our paper up to the
> problem of pulsing source. In this case the radial component of
> gradient of potential does depend only on the distance from source.
> But if you read up to the problem of oscillating source, you will see
> your prediction failed. In that problem the gradient of scalar
> potential already depends on the spherical angle - it means, the
> potential depends, too. As I just said, this is due to another
> symmetry. So the scalar potential dependent on angle theta in Leo's
> problem is correct.
> 
> Further, should you attentively read this appendix to the paper on
> divergence theorem (just "New Year question from Leo"), you would see,
> in this problem the vector and scalar potentials are derived on the
> basis of standard formalism, so, when you are saying of mistake, it
> would be correct of you to point the incorrectness in the derivation.
> You did not point. And as far as I can judge, you will not, as there
> is no incorrectness. ;-) All your substantiation is grounded on the
> idea of "obvious - unobvious", just as your statement
> 
> >This is why you're concluding that curl grad is not
> >zero, when, once you do it properly, it must be.  Curl grad must
> >always vanish regardless of the nature of the coordinate system.
> 
> However this is too little for physics. Just such approach a priori
> brings the physics to the obstruction which is so hard-lifted by many
> generations of physicists. So I would be very grateful to you if you
> admit this simple truth that we have to analyse thoroughly just the
> material and to refuse as fully as possible the idea of "obvious -
> unobvious" in our judgement. And if speaking of the present problem,
> both in the discussed paper and in my respond to Leo you can find the
> references, what, where from and how has been taken. As I can see, you
> are Russian-speaking and these references are available for you.
> Please, take these books and track the solution, then tell me your
> result. Of course, if it interests you but is not caused by a trivial
> insistence to retain the dogma.
> 
> Enjoy analysing,
> 
> Sergey

I've read through your response a few times and I have no real idea
what you are saying.  I do know your derivation is just plain wrong,
however.  In what alternative universe is curl grad not zero?