9) Inertia and momentum are jerked when the general flow of any given arbitrary respective Hamiltonian operators and Hamiltonian operations are altered or perturbated from the trajectory that these had initially undergone. So, as a superstring's inertial and momentum-wise tendencies over a relatively secure period of time are abruptly changed over a more transient period of time, this abrupt change in both discrete substringular inertia and discrete substringular momentum is a change in the directoral path and/or the specific genus of the Noether Flow of the mentioned substringular locus where the said superstring is moving over a given arbitrary Fourier Transformation -- that is directly involve here. Such an alteration in the directoral path and/or the specific genus of Noether Flow of a superstring is a change in a fractal of substringular acceleration. Such a change in "acceleration" is a jerk, or, in other words, this is a jerk of both the Hamiltonian-based inertia and the Hamiltonian-based momentum of the said superstring.
10) When a superstring initially bears a direct effectual wave-tug and/or a direct effectual wave-pull upon a given arbitrary substringular holonomic substrate that it acts upon, while then, at an ensuing period of time over a given arbitrary Fourier Transformation, the said superstring at this point lacks a direct effectual wave-tug and/or a direct effectual wave-pull upon the prior mentioned given arbitrary substringular holonomic substrate that was initially mentioned, then, the superstring that I eluded to as varying in its ability to bear a direct effectual wave-tug and/or a direct effectual wave-pull upon some exterialized entity that it is acting upon may be described of as acting via a partially abelian geometry over time. Or, in a second scenario, if the initial superstring mentioned here instead bears a direct effectual wave-tug and/or a direct effectual wave-pull upon one initial holonomic substrate that may be mentioned here, while, the said superstring that was brought up in the beginning of this sentence -- at the same bearing of metrical locus at the vantage point of a centralized conipoint-- lacks both a direct effectual wave-tug and/or a direct effectual wave-pull upon another holonomic substrate that it is touching in a Yakawa manner that may here be of a Gliossi tangency in this given arbitrary example, then, in this case too, the said superstring initially mentioned in this second case will here too be considered to bear a partially abelian geometry upon its environment. In this second case, the tendancy of having a partially abelian geometry may be viewed even at a "snapshot" of extrapolation that may here be described over a pertainent Laplacian Transformation -- based upon the derivation of the potential as to how the related push and pull of the directorals of the said superstring bear upon the directly related surrounding Poincaire-based eigenstates that may work to influence the impending interactions that work upon the whole overall holonomic substrate that the said superstring is acting upon.
I will answer the last question later! Sincerely, Sam Roach.
No comments:
Post a Comment