dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:<slrnc7dvm9.6ci.dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net>...
> Sergey Karavashkin: 
>  >dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message:
>  >> Sergey Karavashkin: 
>  >>  >dubious@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

>   (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%.