Path: ccsf.homeunix.org!ccsf.homeunix.org!news1.wakwak.com!nf1.xephion.ne.jp!onion.ish.org!news.heimat.gr.jp!taurus!newsfeed.media.kyoto-u.ac.jp!feed5.newsreader.com!newsreader.com!news3.optonline.net!news.glorb.com!postnews1.google.com!not-for-mail From: selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) Newsgroups: sci.physics,sci.physics.electromag,alt.sci.physics.new-theories,fj.sci.matter,sci.physics.relativity Subject: Re: Gradient of potential function of dynamic field Date: 9 May 2004 13:50:49 -0700 Organization: http://groups.google.com Lines: 57 Message-ID: References: NNTP-Posting-Host: 213.138.113.5 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: posting.google.com 1084135849 18652 127.0.0.1 (9 May 2004 20:50:49 GMT) X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse@google.com NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 9 May 2004 20:50:49 +0000 (UTC) Xref: ccsf.homeunix.org fj.sci.matter:164 dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote in message news:... > Sergey Karavashkin: > >dubious@radioactivex.lebesque-al.net (Bilge) wrote: > >> 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. > > Whatever that means... > > >> > >> >(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? > > Post it and I'll see it. 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