Dear Editor:

I would like to resubmit a revised version of this letter and make a
formal appeal.
 
The rejection of this letter is based on the reviews of Referee B and C.
I agree with Referee B and I found an American colleague to polish my
English. I think the style is important but Referee B is not against the
content of the letter. To my humble opinion, I don't agree with Referee
C. The ball in the simulation is a solid body, not a solid "particle".
What's new in this letter is that I didn't try to "create" a model for
this dynamical system. I set up the dynamical system by N-S equations
and Newton's 2nd law and tried to rewrite the dynamics in the coordinate
system moving with the ball. There's no approximation when I rewrote
the dynamics system. I didn't assume that the Reynolds number is very
large or small to simplify the dynamics, either.
 
I agree with Referee C that the simulation is amusing. But I think
there're a lot I can do after this research. The falling paper, 3D
simulations, general formula for interactions between a solid body
and N-S flow...... It's not alone. It's related to many research -
for example, those papers I refer to. It shows the possibility to
handle the falling paper without any "model" - which is a problem
with long history. It also brings a new direction for the research
of "flow pass a rotating cylinder" - you can probably find thousand
of papers in this topic. Now we get something new to do.
 
I hope you can reconsider the revised version of the letter. I hope
the publication of this paper will bring a lot of nice ideas for
related research.

Please check

http://www.csm.ornl.gov/~huang/curveball.htm

for a Java movie and more close-up shots of this simulation.
 
Sincerely,
 
Joey