Gradient of potential function of dynamic field
Sergey Karavashkin
We open the new volume
4 (2004), issue 1
of our journal
"SELF Transactions",
publishing a new paper
" On gradient of potential function of dynamic field "
*Abstract*
We study the gradient of potential function of dynamic field and show
that in dynamic fields the gradient of function divides into
coordinate-dependent and time-dependent parts. We will show the
standard expression connecting the electric field strength with vector
and scalar potentials to be the consequence of this division of
gradient in dynamic fields. Due to this, curl of gradient of potential
function is not zero.
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.
Tom Potter
news:a42650fc.04020...@posting.google.com...
As the "del factor" has the dimensions of per unit length,
the curl, grad, and divergence operations
do not of themselves introduce time into static equations,
but if vector space operations are performed on dynamic functions,
naturally time will be present in the equations.
--
Tom Potter http://tompotter.us
Igor
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.
Sergey Karavashkin
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> news:a42650fc.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > We open the new volume
> > 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.
>
> As the "del factor" has the dimensions of per unit length,
> the curl, grad, and divergence operations
> do not of themselves introduce time into static equations,
> but if vector space operations are performed on dynamic functions,
> naturally time will be present in the equations.
Exactly, Tom. It only remains to calculate the corollaries of this evidence. ;-)
Kind regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.04020...@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
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.04020...@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.
Looking at your
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/grad02/grad02.html
we immediately see that your equation (4) is wrong since
phi depends on theta in your equation (3).
In your case where alpha is constant and zero, you should
write:
grad(phi) = @phi/@r e_r + 1/r @phi/@theta e_theta
Your equation (5) for the curl is okay.
So your equation (6) is wrong.
Compare with the correct expressions for grad in eq (3)
and curl in eq (72) in spherical coordinates:
http://164.8.13.169/Enciklopedija/math/math/s/s571.htm
Note that:
your phi is their F
your alpha is their theta
your theta is their phi
You made a very elementary mistake.
Dirk Vdm
Alan Boswell
Can you explain why, in equation 4, two of the component of the gradient
are omitted? In spherical coordinates the gradient has an r, a theta
and a phi component, but equation 4 only shows the r component.
This may explain why equation 6 seeks to show that the curl of the
gradient is nonzero, in contravention of a basic theorem which says curl
grad V = 0 always.
In a dynamic field when curl E is nonzero, the scalar potential does not
exist, so it appears that the paper has been written about a nonexistent
subject, unless I have missed something.
Alan
Alan Boswell
Alan
Igor
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?
Sergey Karavashkin
Thank you, Dirk. At last I see that someone analyses our work, not
trying to thoughtlessly squeeze it into the procrustean bed of dogmas.
Though this inaccuracy which you have found does not effect on the
conclusion that curl of gradient does not vanish, none the less, I'm
very pleased. I fully agree with you, gradient of scalar potential has
to contain not only radial but also tangential component. Our analysis
that you can find some further in this paper, in the problem of field
of oscillating potential source - formula (14) in the page 7 -
corroborates this.
To show that the inaccuracy you found will not turn to zero the curl
of gradient, I have put the derivation to our web site,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/dirk/dirk.html
because, on one hand, I think this question interesting and
long-expected, and on the other hand, because the derivation consists
of many long computations which are convenient to be read in the
standard appearance.
Thank you again, and kind regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> Sergey
> Can you explain why, in equation 4, two of the component of the gradient
> are omitted? In spherical coordinates the gradient has an r, a theta
> and a phi component, but equation 4 only shows the r component.
Gradient does not depend on our alpha (your theta), as the vector of
current is directed in z and, consequently, the problem is
axis-symmetric as to this projection. As to the second tangential
component, Dirk is correct, though this does not change the result,
the curl of gradient remains non-zero in dynamic fields. Please see
more complete substantiation on
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/dirk/dirk.html
> This may explain why equation 6 seeks to show that the curl of the
> gradient is nonzero, in contravention of a basic theorem which says curl
> grad V = 0 always.
We seek non-zero gradient in this problem, because, as I showed in my
reply to Leo (you saw the reference in our paper), the scalar product
of vector potential by direction of propagation is equal to the scalar
potential. This is not me who thought out this relationship which is
true, and we showed it in our paper on gradient. Finding the vector
potential by standard way through the Laplace equation and applying
the equation of relation between the scalar and vector potentials, we
automatically yield the non-zero scalar potential. Basically, this is
the subject of paper on gradient. You can see, both in the problem of
pulsing source and oscillating source, the gradient of potential is a
time-dependent function. Consequently, the conventional calibration
which deletes the scalar potential from equations of dynamic field is
erroneous. Just this brings us to many mistakes, in particular, when
we delete from our solutions the longitudinal component of solutions.
Sergey
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.0402...@posting.google.com...
Sergey, you made a new mistake here.
On that page
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/dirk/dirk.html
you "corrected in red" my equation
grad(phi) = @phi/@r e_r + 1/r @phi/@theta e_theta
to
grad(phi) = @phi/@r e_r + 1/r 1/sin(theta) @phi/@theta e_theta
but that is wrong, since I explicitly referred to
http://164.8.13.169/Enciklopedija/math/math/s/s571.htm
where in their equations (30) and (72), as I added:
| your phi is their F
| your alpha is their theta
| your theta is their phi !!!
Since your theta is their phi, my equation
grad(phi) = @phi/@r e_r + 1/r @phi/@theta e_theta
was okay and you should not have introduced the 1/sin(theta).
After all, this is how *you* derived *your* equation (5).
So, do try again, check the equations, make the substitutions
| your phi is their F
| your alpha is their theta
| your theta is their phi !!!and you'll see that
and verify that indeed
curl(grad(phi)) = 0
It is a very well known elementary theorem.
Dirk Vdm
Alan Boswell
curl grad v = 0 is a general theorem which, because it is general, also
applies to all coordinate systems and also to axisymmetric systems.
Looking at your link, I think your expression for the potential of a
current element is incomplete, and should have a factor (1-j/(kr)) that
you have omitted.
I have emailed the analysis to you separately.
Alan
Dirk Van de moortel
"Alan Boswell" <alan.b...@nospambaesystems.com> wrote in message news:403A05AD...@nospambaesystems.com...
> Sergey
>
> curl grad v = 0 is a general theorem which, because it is general, also
> applies to all coordinate systems and also to axisymmetric systems.
>
> Looking at your link, I think your expression for the potential of a
> current element is incomplete, and should have a factor (1-j/(kr)) that
> you have omitted.
>
> I have emailed the analysis to you separately.
I have the impression that Sergey is not really interested
in the refutations of his article.
Dirk Vdm
Alan Boswell
Yes, but we need to stress the point that our objections are scientific
and not psychological . . .
Alan
Sergey Karavashkin
No, Dirk. To understand, who of us is correct, determine the axis of
symmetry of the problem and the angle corresponding to this symmetry.
The term of expression that contains this angle will be with the
coefficient 1/r. Both in the Leo's problem (this is seen in his
figure) and in the literature to which I referred responding him, the
angle theta does not correspond to the angle to which the symmetry of
the system relates. So to this term of expression
relates the coefficient 1/sin(theta). Dirk, this is not my wish. This
is the school program. So please see attentively this course to make
sure in what I'm saying.
You can additionally make sure that curl(grad(phi)) =/= 0 looking at
our new dynamic animation of scalar potential produced by dynamic
dipole,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/agfig4.gif
In dynamic fields everything is not so as you used to think. So please
try to grasp what I'm saying before thinking me wrong.
Kind regards,
Sergey
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.04022...@posting.google.com...
You have swapped the two angular coordinates between
applying grad and curl. Check it.
Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
For *any* scalar function of position phi, it is universally true, as can be
proved in two lines of vector calculus, that
curl(grad(phi)) = 0
What am I missing?
Franz
Sergey Karavashkin
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> news:a42650fc.04022...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@hotmail.Thanks-NoSperm.com> wrote
> in message news:<c12pae$cd7$1...@reader11.wxs.nl>...
> > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> news:a42650fc.0402...@posting.google.com...
> > > > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com>
> wrote in message
> news:<NHIVb.13987$pC3....@news.cpqcorp.net>...
> > > > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
> news:a42650fc.04020...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > > thoo...@excite.com (Igor) wrote in message
> news:<d434b6c6.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message
> news:<a42650fc.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > > > Dear Colleagues,
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > We open the new volume
> > > > > >
> > > > > > [snip]
> >
> > You can additionally make sure that curl(grad(phi)) =/= 0 looking at
> > our new dynamic animation of scalar potential produced by dynamic
> > dipole,
>
> For *any* scalar function of position phi, it is universally true, as can be
> proved in two lines of vector calculus, that
> curl(grad(phi)) = 0
>
> What am I missing?
>
> Franz
Truly, Franz, you are one of not so many here whom I especially
respect for your knowledge and skill. Unfortunately, our relations
turned out so that we each time appeared on different sides of
barricade and you refused to penetrate into the core of issue. I
understand, if you go standard way in rigid frames of conventional
formalism, the outcome curl(grad(phi)) = 0 is warranted. But the point
is not so as it seems in conventional formalism. To make sure, please
see the animation
http://selftrans.narod.ru/agV.gif
and determine by eye the integral over surface of selected volume,
supposing the area of cross-section normal to the screen. I suspect,
you will yield different values at different moments of time. That is
the entrance to Minotaur's labyrinth. ;-) At due time you seemingly
understood the feature of divergence theorem,
"On longitudinal electromagnetic waves. Chapter 1. Lifting the bans"
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/archive/archive.html#long
and "Transformation of divergence theorem in dynamical fields"
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/archive/archive.html#div
This is why I suggest to start from this reference point for further
understanding. After this we have to leave aside all habitual
standards and scrutinize the essence of computations as such, however
unusual they seem. Please read our
"Theorem of curl of a potential vector in dynamical fields"
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v2_2/contents.html#curl
You will see its value in dynamic fields irrespectively of potential
function of flux. After this read please our
"On gradient of potential function of dynamic field"
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/grad01
and determine, to what is it equal in dynamic fields. After this all,
connect the results - you will yield what I'm saying about. ;-)
It is also important, if you see the animation where I presented for
Dirk the diagram of scalar potential of dynamic dipole
http://selftrans.narod.ru/agfig4.gif
and look at the area of perpendicular to the axis of dipole, you will
see that gradient not always is along the field propagation. In this
area it is perpendicular to the propagation. It is important in view
that when perpendicularly oriented, the curl of this DYNAMIC vector is
not zero.
Of course, this is far from all, but you will make a great step to
understanding. If my problems with posting to Google are not growing
(by some reason, last time their machine rejects my posts, replying to
the very first, "too much letters for today"), I will gladly discuss
this subject further with you.
Kind regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Dirk,
This discussion is necessary and important for me, though I'm some
embarrassed that it is confined to the sought of our mistake. We all
are not gods. In your representation of gradient, the sine really has
to be absent. These substitutions of symbols some shifted me to
another side. But the point is not only in it and not so much in it.
See, you make an emphasis on seeking the error in transformation of
formulas which were yielded in frames of old theory; when they were
derived, there were made such admissions that their rigorous
analyticity has been lost. So I don't look so scrupulously at the
transformations on which you concentrate all your attention. I know,
the results will anyway fully correspond to reality. So in proving our
theorems we base on the rigour of mathematical formalism, not on
particular formulas yielded in frames of old formalism. Please see my
today respond to Alan. You will see, going another way of calculation
in frames of old field theory formalism, he yielded other formula or
scalar potential. And if we continue my computations in the derivation
in "New Year question from Leo", we will yield even third and fourth
forms of scalar potential, and all these forms will differ from each
other. The cause is in the old formalism, irrespectively of our
conservation theorems. Our theorems are just targeted to surmount
these discrepancies. And here it is important to understand the
essence of contradictions, not some their external revelations.
I hope to meet your understanding in this.
Kind regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Colleagues,
Please do not feel hurt. I really need this discussion. Let me try to
explain, what happens. We published this paper on gradient and
advertised it in English and in Russian at the same day. On Yandex
Russian-language forum there developed a heated argument in which
those colleagues revealed much more understanding, and interest, and
creative approach. On the other hand, I permanently remind to
colleagues that I have not an internet connection on my workbench, but
quite far from it, I have to go to internet-cafe, to copy your posts
to floppy disks and to reply at home. Very cumbersome, and to go there
more often than each 4 days would mean to leave all other work and to
become a postman. But on the third side, last few times when I came to
internet-cafe, I experienced difficulties when uploading my responds
to you: the Google machine rejects my posts, and my second reply to
Igor seems to be deleted. I don't see it, try to upload again and am
rejected again.
This is why it appears so long and cumbersome story. I think, this is
very well and helpful that you check our computations. But when you
confine your approach to seeking our errors in particular approximate
solutions yielded in old Maxwellian formalism, this impoverishes the
discussion for you. Please, be a bit more brave and curious!
Please read my complete respond to your letter on our web site
http://selftrans.narod.ru/v4_1/grad/alan/alan.html
Kind regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > thoo...@excite.com (Igor) wrote in message news:<d434b6c6.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.04020...@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
Igor
No matter how long-winded your explanations get, please bear in mind
that you cannot defeat the fact that curl grad ALWAYS vanishes. Till
you accept that fact, any attempted deviation from it will lead you
down a long and worthless path. Maybe you are attempting to
theoretically explain some observable effect, but I'm having trouble
following your arguments. In any case, maintaining that curl grad is
anything but zero won't get you there. It's a dead notion. Good
luck.
Franz Heymann
If you think I am going to read any of all your recommended URL's, you are
gravely mistaken.
If you cannot understand that
curl(grad(phi)) = 0, {Where phi is any scalar function of position)
is a universal truth, then nothing more which you might have to say is
useful except except to poke fun at.
Franz
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.04030...@posting.google.com...
news:<yqr_b.11211$vm4.5...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Alan Boswell" <alan.b...@nospambaesystems.com> wrote in message news:403A05AD...@nospambaesystems.com...
> > > Sergey
> > >
> > > curl grad v = 0 is a general theorem which, because it is general, also
> > > applies to all coordinate systems and also to axisymmetric systems.
> > >
> > > Looking at your link, I think your expression for the potential of a
> > > current element is incomplete, and should have a factor (1-j/(kr)) that
> > > you have omitted.
> > >
> > > I have emailed the analysis to you separately.
> >
> > I have the impression that Sergey is not really interested
> > in the refutations of his article.
> >
> > Dirk Vdm
>
>
> Dear Dirk,
>
> This discussion is necessary and important for me, though I'm some
> embarrassed that it is confined to the sought of our mistake.
There never was a sought.
The mistake is obvious.
Sorry.
Dirk Vdm
Alan Boswell
You are not the only one with a new formalism. I am shortly going to
introduce to the world my own version of a new formalism. You may find
faults with it, but if you do, you are the only loser. So please
approach it with an open mind and do not be constricted by the out-moded
and dusty conventions of the old guard, who are on their way out, and
will shortly be extinct (and a good job too).
My formalism is that conventional, old-fashioned arithmetic is boring.
The hide-bound idea that 1+1=2 is quite mistaken and has had its day.
Actually 1+1 can be any number you wish. No longer is it necessary to
suffer under the chains of rigid theory, which for too long has stifled
free thought and has hampered progress in scientific achievements.
Just as I brilliantly assert that 1+1 is not equal to 2, by exactly the
same thought process I can fully agree with you that curl grad V is not
zero. A few algebraic errors are of no consequence - it's the big
picture that counts! We must march ahead arm-in-arm. Let others find
fault with these new and exciting ideas. They cannot understand that
their stupidity excludes them from . . . . (continued on page 94) . .
.
Alan
Sergey Karavashkin
Pity you, Franz. You can think whatever, but if you don't see, where
to the gradient of potential in my animation is directed, it is really
useless for you to read all the rest. Spend your time among mushrooms.
;-)
Sergey
Bilge
>> If you think I am going to read any of all your recommended URL's, you are
>> gravely mistaken.
>> If you cannot understand that
>> curl(grad(phi)) = 0, {Where phi is any scalar function of position)
>> is a universal truth, then nothing more which you might have to say is
>> useful except except to poke fun at.
>>
>> Franz
>
>Pity you, Franz. You can think whatever, but if you don't see, where
>to the gradient of potential in my animation is directed, it is really
>useless for you to read all the rest. Spend your time among mushrooms.
>;-)
Only a complete nutcase would claim that he discovered a violation
of a mathematical identity.
\nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = e_ijk \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi
= \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi - \nabla_j\nabla_i\Phi
= (\nabla_i\nabla_j - \nabla_j\nabla_i)\Phi
= 0
Tell me. What's next on the selflab agenda? Do you plan to show that
sin^2 + cos^2 != 1 for "dynamic fields"?
Franz Heymann
Franz
Sergey Karavashkin
> Sergey
>
> You are not the only one with a new formalism. I am shortly going to
> introduce to the world my own version of a new formalism. You may find
> faults with it, but if you do, you are the only loser. So please
> approach it with an open mind and do not be constricted by the out-moded
> and dusty conventions of the old guard, who are on their way out, and
> will shortly be extinct (and a good job too).
>
> My formalism is that conventional, old-fashioned arithmetic is boring.
> The hide-bound idea that 1+1=2 is quite mistaken and has had its day.
> Actually 1+1 can be any number you wish. No longer is it necessary to
> suffer under the chains of rigid theory, which for too long has stifled
> free thought and has hampered progress in scientific achievements.
>
> Just as I brilliantly assert that 1+1 is not equal to 2, by exactly the
> same thought process I can fully agree with you that curl grad V is not
> zero. A few algebraic errors are of no consequence - it's the big
> picture that counts! We must march ahead arm-in-arm. Let others find
> fault with these new and exciting ideas. They cannot understand that
> their stupidity excludes them from . . . . (continued on page 94) . .
> .
>
> Alan
>
The fact that in conventional formalism the solutions have
discrepancies is not the problem of our conservation theorems, and I
showed you this in my previous post. We don't present our own
formalism, we see our task in sorting out the obstructions in the
existing formalism. In this course some errors, misunderstanding and
difficulties are natural. We all are people, not gods. The expressions
for scalar potential with whose help you and Dirk are trying to
disregard our theorems have in reality basically other appearance than
this what you are discussing. This is just the reason, why I don't
worry about this form of regularities. In the nearest time I hope to
show you all the real patterns of processes which you even do not
suspend. The fact that the curl of gradient is not zero in transverse
dynamic field will be shown immediately, though even without it, it is
quite obvious, if one has a wish to grasp the issue, but not as Franz
Heymann - to make an appearance as if he did not read our papers,
whilst he has them in his computer from the day of their publication
on the web. This is just the difficulty of your understanding that as
soon as you fail to arrange ... (see the continuation in the page 94),
you lose any interest to the issue. And there remains the only
question, whether you need to understand? ;-) The physics is developed
not at the level of mathematics but at the level of phenomenology. If
in the conventional formalism there exist the flaws in the
phenomenology of phenomena, one can patch them by no mathematical
contrivance. We have to improve the very phenomenology. We in our
laboratory are involved namely in this, having proven sequentially a
number of vector algebra theorems and studying the essence of the very
phenomena. If you have a wish to understand - you will, and I can
help. But if you are unearthing the secondary products of the
conventional theory, you will earn nothing except headache. ;-)
If you intended to prove 1+1=/=2, this is your difficulty. I will
never compete for priority in this. This trend is fully yours.
Good luck with the units. ;-)
Sergey
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.04031...@posting.google.com...
We don't try to disregard your theorems with the expressions for
scalar potential.
We use the definitions of grad and curl to show that you simply
swapped the two angular coordinates after having applied grad
and before having applied rot. It is a silly easily spotted error.
By now, I think we all accept the fact that you are trolls and/or
insane.
Dirk Vdm
Alan Boswell
You misunderstood me. I was temporarily agreeing with your postulation
that curl grad v is not zero, a discovery not found in any of the old
text books. In the future curl grad v will not be zero and 1+1 will not
equal 2. The two statements are equivalent, because they can only be
proved by ignoring the conventions of 'old' mathematics (to understand
the post fully you need an 'irony' detector, which I can supply for
$14.95 plus postage). In other words your idea about the curl of the
gradient can only be proved by screwing up on the algebra, as Dirk and I
showed. It's a waste of time talking about phenomenology when (i) the
algebra has obvious errors (ii) there is no experimental evidence.
Alan
Richard Herring
<alan.b...@nospambaesystems.com> writes
>Sergey
>You misunderstood me. I was temporarily agreeing with your postulation
>that curl grad v is not zero, a discovery not found in any of the old
>text books. In the future curl grad v will not be zero and 1+1 will not
>equal 2. The two statements are equivalent, because they can only be
>proved by ignoring the conventions of 'old' mathematics (to understand
>the post fully you need an 'irony' detector, which I can supply for
>$14.95 plus postage).
Irony? That's the stuff they put in iron-cored solder to make magnetic
flux, isn't it?
--
Richard Herring
Alan Boswell
Alan
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Bilge,
For people defending not the objective truth but interests of definite
school, and defending by any price, our works really are only an
irritant. You really cannot make use of them, since you filter the
information into convenient and inconvenient. As the overwhelming
majority of our information appears inconvenient for you, nothing can
pass your filter except some connective words. Of course, you cannot
understand from them the new idea that we represent. Well, this is out
of the author's control, as your way of perception depends not on the
author's ability but on, how much densely are your eyes and ears tied
up.
Better help Franz to determine the circulation of vector for a very
simple problem that I suggested him in my today post. ;-) You know the
main equation of trigonometry. This fact gives a small hope that you
will not make an usual elementary mistake.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> > > If you think I am going to read any of all your recommended URL's, you
> are
> > > gravely mistaken.
> > > If you cannot understand that
> > > curl(grad(phi)) = 0, {Where phi is any scalar function of position)
> > > is a universal truth, then nothing more which you might have to say is
> > > useful except except to poke fun at.
> > >
> > > Franz
> >
> > Pity you, Franz. You can think whatever, but if you don't see, where
> > to the gradient of potential in my animation is directed, it is really
> > useless for you to read all the rest. Spend your time among mushrooms.
> > ;-)
>
> curl(grad(phi)) = 0, {Where phi is any scalar function of position)
> is a universal truth
>
> Franz
Dear Franz,
I understand so. You have read all my references, have not found any
objective arguments, and it remains nothing else as to "deny to read".
Your matter. Repeat "sugar is sweet", but will you feel more sweet in
your mouth?
I multiply suggested you to base your conclusions on understanding,
not on your insistence which is really extraordinary. ;-) Also I
suggested you to read attentively my references. But striving to
refute, you came to the stage where you basically deny everything,
even that you have them read. I understand, it is too inconvenient for
you, but the physics does not care of our convenience. Rivers will not
flow back because of your protest. ;-)
See the dynamic diagram that shows the dynamic gradient of scalar
potential of dipole on the normal to the axis of charges in the far
field,
http://selftrans.narod.ru/agfig5b.gif
Blue arrows mean the instant direction and the value of gradient of
potential at each point of the diagram space. In this flux we put a
loop denoted in lilac. Two its sides are parallel to the current, and
two are perpendicular.
As you are well aware, in such loop, with 1D flux, the circulation of
vector is equal to the sum of scalar products of the vector of flux
into the vector of length of loop sides. For your better
understanding, red arrows denote the projections of gradient of
potential onto the loop sides. It remained for you only to find the
sum of these products at each instance of time. If you find it zero,
please accept my congratulation. ;-)
I would like to note, the red arrows show not the emf of induction but
just the projections of vector of flux onto the loop sides, in full
accordance with the basic definitions of vector algebra.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.04030...@posting.google.com>...
> > thoo...@excite.com (Igor) wrote in message news:<d434b6c6.04021...@posting.google.com>...
> > > self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > thoo...@excite.com (Igor) wrote in message news:<d434b6c6.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > self...@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.04020...@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > > Dear Colleagues,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We open the new volume
> > > >
> > > > [snip]
> that you cannot defeat the fact that curl grad ALWAYS vanishes. Till
> you accept that fact, any attempted deviation from it will lead you
> down a long and worthless path. Maybe you are attempting to
> theoretically explain some observable effect, but I'm having trouble
> following your arguments. In any case, maintaining that curl grad is
> anything but zero won't get you there. It's a dead notion. Good
> luck.
Dear Igor,
This means, you have not read my long-winded explanations, neither our
paper? You even did not click the animation suggested to your
attention? You have considered nothing of my arguments? You even did
not understand, about what do I tell you. But I'm afraid, I will not
go on trying to prove you something. Please read my today post to
Franz Heymann and try to help him to determine the circulation of
vector in a very simple model. Then you possibly will understand,
where the deadlock is namely - of course, if you want to understand
it.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> Sergey
> You misunderstood me. I was temporarily agreeing with your postulation
> that curl grad v is not zero, a discovery not found in any of the old
> text books. In the future curl grad v will not be zero and 1+1 will not
> equal 2. The two statements are equivalent, because they can only be
> proved by ignoring the conventions of 'old' mathematics (to understand
> the post fully you need an 'irony' detector, which I can supply for
> $14.95 plus postage). In other words your idea about the curl of the
> gradient can only be proved by screwing up on the algebra, as Dirk and I
> showed. It's a waste of time talking about phenomenology when (i) the
> algebra has obvious errors (ii) there is no experimental evidence.
> Alan
>
I understand your embarrassment, but please see and analyse the
following dynamic diagram of dynamic gradient of scalar potential:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/agfig5b.gif
I think, because of it 1+1 will be =2, nevertheless. But with it curl
grad v =/=0. ;-)
Kind regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > Alan Boswell <alan.b...@nospambaesystems.com> wrote in message news:<4045F983...@nospambaesystems.com>...
> scalar potential.
Dear Dirk,
I think, your approach
> We use the definitions of grad and curl to show that you simply
> swapped the two angular coordinates after having applied grad
> and before having applied rot. It is a silly easily spotted error.
very limits you. Please see and analyse the following dynamic diagram
of dynamic gradient of scalar potential:
http://selftrans.narod.ru/agfig5b.gif
>
> By now, I think we all accept the fact that you are trolls and/or
> insane.
I'm not a troll, but I would like much to broaden your understanding
more far than conventional approach allows you. ;-)
Kind regards,
Sergey
> Dirk Vdm
Bilge
>>
>> \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = e_ijk \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi
>>
>> = \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi - \nabla_j\nabla_i\Phi
>>
>> = (\nabla_i\nabla_j - \nabla_j\nabla_i)\Phi
>>
>> = 0
>>
>> Tell me. What's next on the selflab agenda? Do you plan to show that
>> sin^2 + cos^2 != 1 for "dynamic fields"?
>
>Dear Bilge,
>
>For people defending not the objective truth but interests of definite
>school, and defending by any price, our works really are only an
>irritant.
It's a mathemaical identity, sergey. Rather than engage in a verbose
diatribe and rant about me being an irritant, why don't you simply
point out how that identity doesn't follow from the definitions of
the gradient and curl. Anything else is just a smokescreen.
>You really cannot make use of them, since you filter the
>information into convenient and inconvenient. As the overwhelming
>majority of our information appears inconvenient for you, nothing can
>pass your filter except some connective words. Of course, you cannot
>understand from them the new idea that we represent. Well, this is out
>of the author's control, as your way of perception depends not on the
>author's ability but on, how much densely are your eyes and ears tied
>up.
What does perception have to do with a mathematical identity which
follows from the definitions of the curl and gradient? Is the identity,
cos^2 + sin^2 = 1 also only a perception (you didn't answer that).
>
>Better help Franz to determine the circulation of vector for a very
>simple problem that I suggested him in my today post. ;-) You know the
>main equation of trigonometry. This fact gives a small hope that you
>will not make an usual elementary mistake.
I'd rather see you tell me how a mathematical identity depends upon
my perception.
Dirk Van de moortel
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.04031...@posting.google.com...
> "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<5UM3c.30286$e01.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> > "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > > Alan Boswell <alan.b...@nospambaesystems.com> wrote in message news:<4045F983...@nospambaesystems.com>...
> [snip]
> > We don't try to disregard your theorems with the expressions for
> > scalar potential.
>
> Dear Dirk,
>
> I think, your approach
>
> > We use the definitions of grad and curl to show that you simply
> > swapped the two angular coordinates after having applied grad
> > and before having applied rot. It is a silly easily spotted error.
>
> very limits you. Please see and analyse the following dynamic diagram
> of dynamic gradient of scalar potential:
>
> http://selftrans.narod.ru/agfig5b.gif
>
> >
> > By now, I think we all accept the fact that you are trolls and/or
> > insane.
>
> I'm not a troll, but I would like much to broaden your understanding
> more far than conventional approach allows you. ;-)
Clearly
"Trolls and/or insane"
but
"no trolls"
implies
"insane"
so, take care.
Dirk Vdm
Franz Heymann
"Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message
news:a42650fc.04031...@posting.google.com...
[snipp]
> I'm not a troll, but I would like much to broaden your understanding
> more far than conventional approach allows you. ;-)
You are either giving a remarkably good imitation of one, or you are bone
from the neck up.
Franz
Franz Heymann
You are wrong. I did not read one solitary one of your references, and I do
not propose to do so, since they are quite irrelevant to the present topic
of discussion.
I remind you that you appear to maintain that the mathematical identity
curl(grad(phi)) = 0
may sometimes be violated.
That defines you uniquely as being an ignoramus.
Let's call it a day at that.
Franz
Igor
Actually, I looked it over a couple of times. Frankly, I couldn't
really find anything wrong with the flow of your arguments. My take
is that there is a mistake in there somewhere. At least there would
have to be, since curl grad always vanishes. But I still can't locate
where your argument goes wrong. Maybe I'll look at it once more.
Alan Boswell
No embarrassment. Your diagram, based on mistaken algebra, has no
meaning. It does not relate to the real world and is entirely
delusional. In your fantasy world where curl grad v is nonzero and 1+1
is not equal to 2, it might have some significance with the fairies,
elves and pixies.
Alan
Mark Palenik
"Bilge" <dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc54m9t....@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Sergey Karavashkin:
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:
>
> >>
> >> \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = e_ijk \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi
> >>
> >> = \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi - \nabla_j\nabla_i\Phi
> >>
> >> = (\nabla_i\nabla_j - \nabla_j\nabla_i)\Phi
> >>
> >> = 0
> >>
> >> Tell me. What's next on the selflab agenda? Do you plan to show that
> >> sin^2 + cos^2 != 1 for "dynamic fields"?
> >
> >Dear Bilge,
> >
> >For people defending not the objective truth but interests of definite
> >school, and defending by any price, our works really are only an
> >irritant.
>
> It's a mathemaical identity, sergey. Rather than engage in a verbose
> diatribe and rant about me being an irritant, why don't you simply
> point out how that identity doesn't follow from the definitions of
> the gradient and curl. Anything else is just a smokescreen.
>
I almost replied pointing out that for a nonconservative vector field, the
curl wouldn't be zero, but after reading Franz post, I see that Sergey
claims curl(grad(phi)) can not equal zero, which is ridiculous, since the
vector field is grad(f(x,y,z)), which immediately means it's conservative.
By no stretch of the imagination is what he's stating possible, regardless
of how physics works.
Andrew Ruben
there exists a moderated group on electrodynamics.
Having read Feynmann (and listened to him) I grabbed Carver Mead's
Collective
Electrodynamics and was duly impressed with the 4 vector wave
presentation.
What I would like are more sample computation from which to
extrapolate and fool
around with some ideas about the possibility of NON-gauge invariance
and reinvention of an ether.
A R
"Mark Palenik" <markp...@wideopenwest.com> wrote in message news:<Oa6dnTGELY-...@wideopenwest.com>...
Bilge
>there exists a moderated group on electrodynamics.
>Having read Feynmann (and listened to him) I grabbed Carver Mead's
>Collective Electrodynamics and was duly impressed with the 4 vector wave
>presentation.
mechanics, so I'd be rather cautious if the article you read
went beyond classical electrodynamics.
>What I would like are more sample computation from which to extrapolate
>and fool around with some ideas about the possibility of NON-gauge
>invariance and reinvention of an ether.
You don't need an ether to ``fool around'' with a theory that isn't
gauge invariant. All you need to do is give up conservation of charge,
which then means maxwell's equations are no longer correct. That alone
doesn't prevent you from making the resuling theory gauge invariant,
so long as you retain the lorentz condition, d_u A^u = 0, but you
have to work harder to make the resulting theory gauge invariant.
You could simply abandon the lorentz condition and that would be
guaranteed to do what you want.
Franz Heymann
"Andrew Ruben" <mirro...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4338606c.04031...@posting.google.com...
> I have just begun to read the postings on this group and wonder if
> there exists a moderated group on electrodynamics.
> Having read Feynmann (and listened to him) I grabbed Carver Mead's
> Collective
> Electrodynamics and was duly impressed with the 4 vector wave
> presentation.
> What I would like are more sample computation from which to
> extrapolate and fool
> around with some ideas about the possibility of NON-gauge invariance
> and reinvention of an ether.
Maxwell's equations are gauge invariant. You will simply waste your time.
Franz
Sergey Karavashkin
Dear Mark, you are some inexact in what I'm stating. When speaking
with Franz, I unambiguously considered dynamic fields, and theorem of
curl of potential vector has been written just for dynamic fields. And
the animation which I presented to Franz also represents the dynamic
field. In our paper we clearly showed that in stationary fields for
potential vectors the curl is zero. It is non-zero for dynamic fields.
So let us laugh together that you understood it wrong. I will be very
grateful if you more literally read what I write.
Kind regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> I have just begun to read the postings on this group and wonder if
> there exists a moderated group on electrodynamics.
> Having read Feynmann (and listened to him) I grabbed Carver Mead's
> Collective
> Electrodynamics and was duly impressed with the 4 vector wave
> presentation.
> What I would like are more sample computation from which to
> extrapolate and fool
> around with some ideas about the possibility of NON-gauge invariance
> and reinvention of an ether.
> A R
Dear Andrew,
We'll soon show the additional calculation samples. The paper already
has been written and is under translation into English now.
As to 4-vector waves, and the more with the aether, please don't
hurry. Feynmann will not help here. The theorems which we have proved
for dynamic fields do not form the 4th time dimension. Things are
there simpler and at the same time more complicated. Long story to
post on this separate subject. We can grasp it only, having left
Einstein's formalism. But if one puts Einstein's formalism as the aim
of aims, the discussion becomes idle.
Kind regards,
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> Sergey
> No embarrassment. Your diagram, based on mistaken algebra, has no
> meaning. It does not relate to the real world and is entirely
> delusional. In your fantasy world where curl grad v is nonzero and 1+1
> is not equal to 2, it might have some significance with the fairies,
> elves and pixies.
> Alan
Yes, Alan, this is another algebra in the sense that this is not the
algebra of photons. In the wave physics 1+1=/=2, since the strengths
of electric fields of waves are added geometrically. Here the delay
phases are of importance. You have understood my diagram, this is
already nice. Psychological issues are your difficulties. There is
nothing new for me that you did not want to understand it from the
very beginning. But because of your unwilling to understand the
essence of wave physics, the sun will not stop rising in mornings.
Simply you will not see it from your cellar. Accept my sympathy.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dirk Van de moortel" <dirkvand...@ThankS-NO-SperM.hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<5UM3c.30286$e01.2...@phobos.telenet-ops.be>...
> > > "Sergey Karavashkin" <self...@yandex.ru> wrote in message news:a42650fc.04031...@posting.google.com...
> > > > Alan Boswell <alan.b...@nospambaesystems.com> wrote in message news:<4045F983...@nospambaesystems.com>...
> [snip]
> > http://selftrans.narod.ru/agfig5b.gif
> >
> > >
> > > By now, I think we all accept the fact that you are trolls and/or
> > > insane.
> >
> > I'm not a troll, but I would like much to broaden your understanding
> > more far than conventional approach allows you. ;-)
>
> Clearly
> "Trolls and/or insane"
> but
> "no trolls"
> implies
> "insane"
> so, take care.
>
> Dirk Vdm
Dirk, your manner is not new and cannot be surprising. After I showed
you this animation, you can cry "no!!!!!" up to the end of your days.
This already does not matter.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
English nice manner to admit the opponent's rightness. As I see, you
cannot turn to zero the circulation of vector in my diagram. All the
rest is of no importance. If you did not, and have no intention to,
read our papers, it does not add the honour to your professionalism
and makes your arguments idle. Whether these papers are relevant to
the topic, let judge me and those who have read them. I from my side
have answered your question, what namely you omitted. Well, it is your
matter to omit it further.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
> Sergey Karavashkin:
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:
>
> >>
> >> \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = e_ijk \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi
> >>
> >> = \nabla_i\nabla_j\Phi - \nabla_j\nabla_i\Phi
> >>
> >> = (\nabla_i\nabla_j - \nabla_j\nabla_i)\Phi
> >>
> >> = 0
> >>
> >> Tell me. What's next on the selflab agenda? Do you plan to show that
> >> sin^2 + cos^2 != 1 for "dynamic fields"?
> >
> >Dear Bilge,
> >
> >For people defending not the objective truth but interests of definite
> >school, and defending by any price, our works really are only an
> >irritant.
>
> It's a mathemaical identity, sergey. Rather than engage in a verbose
> diatribe and rant about me being an irritant, why don't you simply
> point out how that identity doesn't follow from the definitions of
> the gradient and curl. Anything else is just a smokescreen.
No smokescreen. I have presented just the proof. Determine the
circulation of vector in my diagram and after this state
curl(grad(phi)) = 0 identically. Still I see the smokescreen from your
side, but the wing is from mine - this is why you are suffocating with
your own smokescreen. Until you understand it, this will irritate your
eyes. Your, not mine. ;-)
> >You really cannot make use of them, since you filter the
> >information into convenient and inconvenient. As the overwhelming
> >majority of our information appears inconvenient for you, nothing can
> >pass your filter except some connective words. Of course, you cannot
> >understand from them the new idea that we represent. Well, this is out
> >of the author's control, as your way of perception depends not on the
> >author's ability but on, how much densely are your eyes and ears tied
> >up.
>
> What does perception have to do with a mathematical identity which
> follows from the definitions of the curl and gradient? Is the identity,
> cos^2 + sin^2 = 1 also only a perception (you didn't answer that).
I did not claim wrong the basic identity of trigonometry. Simply every
thing has its limits. You do not want to understand it because of
principle. From this there follows your unwilling to see the
arguments, to analyse, to follow the logic of proof. You have the only
wish - to think eternal the knowledge that was given you at your
universities. Your right, but it is not worthy to accuse others in
what is your own demerit.
> >Better help Franz to determine the circulation of vector for a very
> >simple problem that I suggested him in my today post. ;-) You know the
> >main equation of trigonometry. This fact gives a small hope that you
> >will not make an usual elementary mistake.
>
> I'd rather see you tell me how a mathematical identity depends upon
> my perception.
You, not me have to see. By some reason, I don't see your calculation
of circulation after my animation. As soon as you show me this
calculation and that it comes to zero, you will may stating that
something depends or not on your perception. I can only add, the field
in my animation has been built on strong classical definitions. I have
the proof in my pocket. As soon as you answer my question of
circulation of the shown vector field as such, I will give you
rigorous substantiation that this field is real. Or rather, you hardly
will do it, but I will prove you anyway.
Bye-bye,
Sergey
Franz Heymann
Your mathematical abilities leave a lot to be desired.
Franz
Bilge
>No smokescreen. I have presented just the proof.
Then write down the scalar function \Phi for which you assert
the relation, \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = 0 does not hold. Don't
give me a bunch of interpretational mumbo-jumbo, just write
the scalar function.
>Determine the circulation of vector in my diagram and after this state
>curl(grad(phi)) = 0 identically.
Write down the function \phi. I'm not going to sort through whatever
contortions you've gone through to get the wrong answer the hard way.
Just give me the function.
>Still I see the smokescreen from your
>side, but the wing is from mine - this is why you are suffocating with
>your own smokescreen. Until you understand it, this will irritate your
>eyes. Your, not mine. ;-)
Write down the scalar function. Don't add any of your personal
interpretations or try to ``explain'' how I have to calculate
something to get your answer. Just give me a scalar function.
I can take a gradient and curl.
Sergey Karavashkin
First, this what interests you will be in our next paper which we will
publish soon. Second, with such interest to Andrew and his attempts to
join non-joinable, this question is seemingly to him. Third, it is
strange for me to respond to a person who in the neighbouring post
addmits all what I'm saying, but in the posts to me denies everything
what I'm saying.
Sergey
Bilge
its gradient in not zero. You don't need an article just to write
down a function.
Sergey Karavashkin
For you who even full proof don't accept as a grounds, just the
function will tell nothing. I understand your hurry, but please have a
patience and wait few days. ;-)
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
No problem, Franz. I have already suggested you: find the solution for
at least one dynamic problems of those which have been presented in
our journal. You rejected - not because you can do it but just because
you understand, this is what you are not able.
I suggested you a very simple problem: with your mathematical
abilities, calculate the circulation of scalar gradient of dynamic
scalar potential. Have you done it? What have my abilities to do with
it? Show yours! And show this circulation identically zero. After this
we will discuss, who of us has which abilities. The problem just for
the first-year students.
Sergey
Bilge
>For you who even full proof don't accept as a grounds, just the
>function will tell nothing.
Sure it will. If you claim that there is a function \Phi for which the
curl of its gradient is no zero, then all you have to do to prove that is
post the function so I can take the curl of its gradient and see for
myself. Nothing could be simpler. I predict that you won't post your
so-called function, but will instead revert to some convoluted argument
which spends pages avoiding anything specific.
>I understand your hurry, but please have a patience and wait few days. ;-)
What happened? Did you discover you didn't have such a function and
you got a non-zero answer due to an arithmetic error and are going
try and find a new one? If not, then just post the function for which
you claim \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) is non-zero. If you are correct, the
function will make that self-evident, without any need for you to
create a convoluted, several page argument that handwaves your way
to a non-zero result for a result which is zero by any straight-forward
mathematical argument.
Just post the function. If it exists and you know what it is, then
nothing prevents you from posting it, especially given the fact that
you would be quite happy to rub my nose in being wrong for telling
you that \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = 0 is a mathematical identity.
Sergey Karavashkin
;-)
http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#dipole
Sergey
Bilge
>> nothing prevents you from posting it, especially given the fact that
>> you would be quite happy to rub my nose in being wrong for telling
>> you that \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = 0 is a mathematical identity.
>
>;-)
>
>http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#dipole
argument about the curl of a gradient not being zero when you can post the
function for which you claim that relation doesn't hold in a single line.
Sergey Karavashkin
Remain ignorant. Your difficulty. ;-)
Sergey
Bilge
>dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message:
>> Sergey Karavashkin:
>> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
>>
>> >> Just post the function. If it exists and you know what it is, then
>> >> nothing prevents you from posting it, especially given the fact that
>> >> you would be quite happy to rub my nose in being wrong for telling
>> >> you that \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = 0 is a mathematical identity.
>> >
>> >;-)
>> >
>> >http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#dipole
>>
>> Just post the function. I'm not going to read nine pages of a convoluted
>> argument about the curl of a gradient not being zero when you can post the
>> function for which you claim that relation doesn't hold in a single line.
>
>Remain ignorant. Your difficulty. ;-)
You misspeled ``logical'' in that first sentence. It's a simple
question to resolve, sergey.
(1) Either you have a function f for which curl (grad f) is non-zero or
you don't.
(2) If you have such a function, then either the function is nine pages
long, or I don't have to read a nine page argument to take the curl
of the gradient of that function.
(3) If I take the curl of the gradient of that function, I will
either get zero or I won't.
(4) If I get zero, then you're wrong in claiming the curl of a
gradient can be non-zero.
That's all there is to it. It's not rocket science. Add to this,
(5) If you had such a function, you would waste no time in posting
it, if for no other reason, to force me to admit you were
right and that curl (\grad f) = 0 is not a vector identity.
I conclude that despite a lot of motivation to post such a
function, you haven't done so because you know that if I take
the curl of the gradient of that function, I'll get zero without
inserting your nine page argument somewhere between taking the
gradient and taking the curl which magically alters the vector
function into a different function that you started with.
It's easy to get a non-zero answer for an answer that is
obviously zero by inspection. Just make the solution long
enough for the odds of making a mistake to reach 100%.
Sergey Karavashkin
> Sergey Karavashkin:
> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message:
> >> Sergey Karavashkin:
> >> >dub...@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message
>
> >> >> Just post the function. If it exists and you know what it is, then
> >> >> nothing prevents you from posting it, especially given the fact that
> >> >> you would be quite happy to rub my nose in being wrong for telling
> >> >> you that \nabla x (\nabla\Phi) = 0 is a mathematical identity.
> >> >
> >> >;-)
> >> >
> >> >http://angelfire.lycos.com/la3/selftrans/v4_1/contents4.html#dipole
> >>
> >> Just post the function. I'm not going to read nine pages of a convoluted
> >> argument about the curl of a gradient not being zero when you can post the
> >> function for which you claim that relation doesn't hold in a single line.
> >
> >Remain ignorant. Your difficulty. ;-)
>
> You misspeled ``logical'' in that first sentence. It's a simple
> question to resolve, sergey.
>
> (1) Either you have a function f for which curl (grad f) is non-zero or
> you don't.
>
Bilge, don't dodge. You know, this paper has 27 pages, not 9. But not
in vain you are saying of 9
pages, as just in the 8th page of paper (p. 19 of the issue) you saw
our formula (26). You saw it.
What claims have you to me? You understood everything and simply have
not proper arguments,
only trivially quarrel and accuse me of something. Nothing new. You
did so when we discussed
interference, Bose statistics, coherence and so on, so on. You are
repeating it, Bilge. Have you
any arguments against this formula? The diagram of vector potential
described by this formula is
shown in Fig. 7 (p. 22 of the issue). You saw it, too. Check it either
differentiate yourself, how
you want. You know, it does not touch me. ;-) This is only you who
suffer from your ignorance,
by all your 100 %. ;-)
You relativists even don't understand: when for example Franz refused
to find independently the
circulation of vector in the suggested animation, or when you
factually avoid to discuss the
formula which you have seen and are trying to reduce the discussion to
the groundless
accusation, - you only exhibit that you have no arguments and have
found no errors in our
theorems. Thus, your absurd accusations sound for me as a beautiful
music. Murmur further, and
we, with your musical accompaniment, will gradually lift the Bohr's
problem of non-radiating
electron, in frames of classical formalism. ;-)
Sergey
Bilge
>Bilge, don't dodge. You know, this paper has 27 pages, not 9. But not
>in vain you are saying of 9 pages, as just in the 8th page of paper
OK. Then change what I said to read:
"Either your function is 27 pages long or I don't have to read
27 pages to know what it is."
>(p. 19 of the issue) you saw our formula (26).
Not hardly. I looked at you index page. I didn't bother read
any of your article.
>You saw it.
Not unless your formula looks like a table of contents. Either post
the function of get lost. My guess is that you wrote an article trying
to give physical significance to an arithmetic error. If you had a
real result, you wouldn't hesitate to post 1 function rather than
post a lot of crap to cover for not having a function.
Franz Heymann
[snip]
> You relativists even don't understand: when for example Franz
refused
> to find independently the
> circulation of vector in the suggested animation,
Franz knows when he is up against a monumental ignoramus, and he does
not flog dead horses.
[snip]
Franz
Sergey Karavashkin
> Sergey Karavashkin:
> >
> >Bilge, don't dodge. You know, this paper has 27 pages, not 9. But not
> >in vain you are saying of 9 pages, as just in the 8th page of paper
>
> OK. Then change what I said to read:
>
> "Either your function is 27 pages long or I don't have to read
> 27 pages to know what it is."
You are saying what you are saying, not occasionally.
>
> >(p. 19 of the issue) you saw our formula (26).
>
> Not hardly. I looked at you index page. I didn't bother read
> any of your article.
Well then, what for do you ask me for this function if you insistently
don't want to see it?
> >You saw it.
>
> Not unless your formula looks like a table of contents. Either post
> the function of get lost. My guess is that you wrote an article trying
> to give physical significance to an arithmetic error. If you had a
> real result, you wouldn't hesitate to post 1 function rather than
> post a lot of crap to cover for not having a function.
Go and read: page 19, formula (26).
Sergey
Bilge
>> Sergey Karavashkin:
>> >
>> >Bilge, don't dodge. You know, this paper has 27 pages, not 9. But not
>> >in vain you are saying of 9 pages, as just in the 8th page of paper
>>
>> OK. Then change what I said to read:
>>
>> "Either your function is 27 pages long or I don't have to read
>> 27 pages to know what it is."
>
>You are saying what you are saying, not occasionally.
>>
>> >(p. 19 of the issue) you saw our formula (26).
>>
>> Not hardly. I looked at you index page. I didn't bother read
>> any of your article.
>
>Well then, what for do you ask me for this function if you insistently
>don't want to see it?
Sergey Karavashkin
Really no, Franz. Judging by your posts, you just attempt to flog a
dead horse. I suggested you a
very simple task - determine with standard methods the circulation of
vector in my diagram.
Instead, you sweared me, you went away from thread - whatever instead
a simple answer, is the
circulation zero or not. If yes, you have a right to write what you
wrote. If not, I am sorry to say,
you not me are ignoramus. And you really try to reanimate the horse of
relativity which has dead
long time ago. You surely will not respond to this post, and even if
you respond, there will be
nothing to the point.
Sergey
Sergey Karavashkin
First of all, Bilge, here is not a restaurant, and I'm not a waiter.
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. Not simply a formula, but with all necessary
substantiation. But you want me to write it here, without
substantiation. However you are not the person who will discuss in
frames of scientific ethics. You never were interested to grasp the
truth. You know it well! You are unscrupulous in the issues of
plagiarism, consciousness, decency. Of course, you are not happy that
my formula describes the process in the way you don't like. But I
cannot help you here. The formula exists, it has been derived on the
basis of standard mathematical formalism. You well understood it. See,
you don't try to state zero the circulation over the selected loop,
and this is a great progress for you. At due time you attempted to
deny the Fourier expansion. ;-)
Note also, you twice responded to my post, and both times you did not
touch the charge of photon which I reminded you. Should I tell you,
why? You surely know. By the way, how about your consortium that tried
to produce a directed longitudinal EM wave? ;-) I know only that you
team have bit Franz. Whether your Bilge-band has dissipated? The
longitudinal photon appeared too massive? ;-)
Well, Bilge, continue your melody for relativist with photon. You do
it well, and the main, so funny. Who could think out a better
self-advertisement, how absurd your relativistic inferences are! ;-)
Sergey
Bilge
>> >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.
>However you are not the person who will discuss in frames of scientific
>ethics. You never were interested to grasp the truth. You know it well!
>You are unscrupulous in the issues of plagiarism, consciousness, decency.
You have the same delusions of grandeur as most every other crackpot.
Sorry, but asking you to support your assertions is not a violation
of ethics. What is an ethical issue is your propensity to make un-
substantiated allegations and blatantly false statements in order to
take the focus off of your inability to support your pseudoscientific
assertions.
>Of course, you are not happy that my formula describes the process
>in the way you don't like.
I fail to see what happiness has to do with your failure to support
your own claims or your attempts to recast my request for you to do
into a question of ethics.
>But I cannot help you here.
I'm sure you can't. If you could have supplied such a function,
I have no doubt that you would have done so, if for no other reason
than to try and validate your allegations about me above. The fact
that you would be passing up an opportunity to do that is an even
more compelling reason to dismiss you as a loon.
>The formula exists, it has been derived on the basis of standard
>mathematical formalism.
But, let me guess. It loses something in the translation to
any standard mathematics familiar to someone other than yourself.
>You well understood it. See,
>you don't try to state zero the circulation over the selected loop,
>and this is a great progress for you. At due time you attempted to
>deny the Fourier expansion. ;-)
I've never denied the fourier expansion, you moron. You seem to
have a real problem defending your own claims without having to
make false statements about anyone who asks you to prove them.
Mark Palenik
> 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.
Bilge
>
>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.
tedious arithmetic for something that can be solved by inspection.
I can choose cartesian coordinates, and since those are simplest,
\nabla x (\nabla\phi) = \epsilon_ijk \nabla_i\nabla_j\phi
= (\nabla_i\nabla_j - \nabla_j\nabla_i)\phi
= 0, since partial derivatives commute
Since it appears that r1 and r2 are variables (and different variables),
if one wished to evaluate that function by the method of tedium, one only
need evaluate one term, say, \exp(jk.r1)/r1, since the other is identical.
>I'm also confused as to what j and k are. Are they variables?
>Constants?
As near as I can tell, k is the wave vector (i.e., k.r) and j is
is the imaginary unit (engineers tend to use j rather than i as
sqrt(-1) with j = -i).
>In any event, curl(grad(phi)) does equal zero, no matter how you look
>at it, if you do the calculations correctly.
Right. Sergey has been claiming the function above is a counter example
to that mathematical identity.
Sergey Karavashkin
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