Pleasures all mine.

Yea, I was a big fan of that too...couldn't wait for the future to arrive...until I was introduced to: The Naked Communist, 1984 and Atlas Shrugged - although I couldn't fully appreciate AR until the turn of the century when I read Mark Hamilton's manuscripts (Neothink).

To my mind, Just the mention of value implies life, but I guess, like so many writers fall trap to, me most of all, is that not everyone sees things the same way. Come to think about it, that's mostly a good thing, just tough to articulate for each thinker and seer.

Change from place to place means different in one place in comparison with another. What each is in comparison with the others is fact, without regard to temporal processes at all under static conditions. There is no time dependence. The duration of existence is irrelevant to the comparison.

If you are thinking of the time in looking at or considering one, then the other, with a duration for each, that is the time inherent in any mental process, not the object of the knowledge in external reality. All concepts are only in our brains; without humans, concepts would not exist at all, but the facts that give rise to them do. The knowledge they provide is not fantasy, concepts refer to the reality "out there". That is not reification. They are knowledge of reality, a grasp of reality, not a "model" of it in parallel with reality.

Time is implicit in everything as long as there is some motion somewhere. So is every other non-essential feature of the referents of concepts implicit in the meaning of our concepts even though it is omitted as non-essential and left only implicit in the concept. This is the case for spatial derivatives; they pertain to measurements in space without regard to time. Mentioning that time is implicit in everything because everything endures to some degree does nothing to clarify the meaning of spatial derivatives. You could say the same for any concept and it would elucidate nothing other than the general principle that all concepts referring to the their units in reality includes everything about the units: existence is identity. The essence of spacial derivatives is change with respect to position with time irrelevant.

Each place at a different position may be changing from one moment to the next, but that is change with respect to what it was itself at that place, not the comparison between places. A beam may be in static equilibrium or moving, as in a vibration, but the displacement and stresses of a bent beam in one place are different than in another, which is what the change the (4th) derivative with respect to distance along the axis represents. The different positions are linked through the spacial derivatives of the displacement because the stresses depend on the rate of strain, which is the gradient of the displacement.

A static beam as an entity is itself not changing, it's just sitting there; the rate of change represented in the spacial derivative refers to positions along the axis describing the spacial variation in static characteristics within the entity, which is part of its identity.

If it's a partial derivative in dynamics, then it's the change with respect to position explicitly at the same time. But that is just the meaning of 'partial derivative' for functions of more than one variable. The time dependence is part of the meaning of the function, not the meaning of spacial derivative; the partial derivative is restricted to one kind of change in the function. The only time derivative, if the beam is moving by changing shape represented by time-varying displacement, is for each single position -- the 2nd derivative representing acceleration, which relates the change in shear and bending from one place to the next instead of a static load varying only by position. Likewise for all the classical equations for vibrating strings, membranes, diffusion, acoustics, Maxwell's equations, etc.