When deriving Stokes law one uses the Navier Stokes equation with the assumptions:
low Reynolds number
stationary flow
in compressible flow
leading to this version of the N.S : $$\nabla p = \eta \Delta v $$
In my book then the force on a sphere is calculated using the stress tensor for isotropic incompressible fluids:
$$\sigma_{ij}= -\delta_{ij} p + \eta ({\partial v_i \over \partial x_j}+{\partial v_j \over \partial x_i})$$
the force than can be calculated by:
$$F=\int_{\partial V} \sigma_{ij} \vec n dS=\int_V {\partial \sigma_{ij} \over \partial x_j} dV$$
This is the cause of my strong confusion using the expression ${\partial \sigma_{ij} \over \partial x_j}$ and comparing it with the N.S we see the following: $${\partial \sigma_{ij} \over \partial x_j}=-\delta_{ij} \partial_j p + \eta \Delta v_i=0$$
were i used $ {\partial \over \partial x_ j} ({\partial v_i \over \partial x_j}+{\partial v_j \over \partial x_i})= ({\partial^2 v_i \over \partial x_ j \partial x_j}+\underbrace{{\partial^2 v_j \over \partial x_i \partial x_ j}}_{=0 })=\Delta v_i$ due to incompressibility.
What in hell am i doing wrong? It appears the second term in the solution for $v=\nabla \Phi + v_2$ i.e. $v_2={a\over r}$ is the key but should it not vanish aswell? In the equation for $F$?
Update: The equation $${\partial \sigma_{ij} \over \partial x_j}=0$$ is definetly an equivalent for the Navier srokes equation used above. (Source: Guyon, Hulin, Petit, Mitescu; Physical Hydrodynamics) So how can you even use this to calculate the Stokes friction?