🚀 go-pugleaf

thoovler@excite.com (Igor) wrote in message news:<d434b6c6.0402101220.44634b7a@posting.google.com>...
> 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]

> 
> 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?

Dear Igor,

By some funny reason, this is my n-th attempt to upload this letter
for you. It either disappears from thread, or I am rejected to post
it. Perhaps something with machine.

This universe is called Dynamic Fields and includes as a part our
quasi-stationary cluster which you and many other colleagues used to
think dynamic, so the laws of this universe have a command over those
which you usually obey. This is only psychologically unaccustomed for
you. The source of your difficulty is, you are first saying,
"impossible", and only after try to grasp. But you already are unable
to grasp, as you simply deleted for your mind all computations and
proof.

To understand, let us begin with a simple. I take a diagram from my
paper on transformation of vector in dynamic fields and build on it an
animation. Before seeing it, tell yourself, as usually: "In the region
free of sources and sinks the divergence of vector is identically
zero". Said? ;-) Fine. This means, the integral over surface of the
selected volume has to remain time-constant. Yes? Fine! Now, in such
mood, please see this animation,

http://selftrans.narod.ru/agV.gif

and determine the flux of vector through the selected volume with
respect to time, supposing that in this animation the cross-section of
volume is positioned into the depth of screen. If for different
instants of time you yield the same value, let us go on speaking of it
as of some non-physical space which we created. But if your integral
does not remain time-constant, let us analyse, beginning with the
phenomenology and classical methodology, not with pre-determination of
result on the grounds of dogmas. Please do not think me to be against
dogmas as such, but we have to use them cautiously and to understand,
with time passing they also age and some of them dye. Or rather, they
all once dye, only some of them are short-living, and others live
centuries, as for example Newton's. And Newton's also will pass to the
history of science, when we understand the meaning of measure of
inertia of material bodies and substitute his second law by something
enhanced.

Sergey