selftrans@yandex.ru (Sergey Karavashkin) wrote in message news:<a42650fc.0403011524.58db9e55@posting.google.com>...
> 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

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.