"Bilge" <dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net> wrote in message
news:slrnc54m9t.985.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net...
> Sergey Karavashkin:
>  >dubious@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.