Some Perspective As To Holomorphic Flow

Let us take into consideration -- a flow of a suppositional particle, that is being mapped-out over a planar surface, over time.  If one considers the initial straight-bearing movement of the here given arbitrary particle to be arbitrarily moving in a directoral-based topological sway, that would here have a relative rise that is equal to its relative run -- then, the so-eluded-to initial path of the said particle of this case -- would be moving in the course of what may be termed of here as a given arbitrary example of a Hamiltonian operator, that is undergoing the Laplacian-based tracing of an identity function.  So, this so-mentioned "straight-bearing" motion of the given arbitrary particle of such a case, may be considered to be here following a closest-fitting mean-based path -- that is here moving in a hermitian manner, that is equally mapping-out in the relative antiholomorphic direction (to the relative right as to a respective given arbitrary observer) to the same even flow as it is being mapped-out in the norm-to-forward-holomorphic direction (to the relative top as to a respective given arbitrary observer).  This so-described initial-based path of the said particle of this case, will be of a unitary Lagrangian, and in a theoretically completely linear-based manner.  After a certain scalar magnitude of the mappable tracing of the integration of the directly corresponding integration of Laplacian-based states -- that may here work to consider the point at which the so-stated particle in question will perturbate into a clearly different direction -- the particle will then be translated at a subtended genus of an angle of 45 degrees, as sort of an inverse of the initial genus of an identity-based function, yet, this "inversion" will be of a movement in a hermitian manner, that is equally mapping-out in the relative holomorphic direction (to the relative left as to a respective given arbitrary observer) to the same even flow as it is being mapped-out in the norm-to-forward-holomorphic direction (to the relative top as to a respective given arbitrary observer).  Each of such unitary-based Lagrangian paths of this respective given arbitrary example, is separated by what may be thought of here as a Lagrangian-based Chern-Simmons singularity.  Let us now consider the horizontal axis of such a mappable tracing to be of the x based axial of this case, and, let us, as well, consider the vertical axis of such a mappable tracing to be of the y based axial.  Let us then consider the initial situation of which I have described of, as happening in the positive x region.  Now, let us say that  one were to form a trivially isomorphic theoretical topological stratum -- that is to be mapped-out in the negative x region.  This would work to form a theoretical region -- to where the particle-- if it were to intrinsically tend to refract or reflect at 90 at each of its exterior Neumman boundary limits -- would act as a phenomenology, that would here tend to move at its best, to bear a Hamiltonian operand, that would "try" to best fit an ideal mean Lagrangian-based path, over time.  To Be Continued!  Sam Roach.

Some Explanation As To A Specific Example Of The Slater Equation

The Slater Equation works to help show the mean Lagrangian path, that may be translated through a Hamiltonian operand.  Electromagnetic energy, namely light, moves in such a manner, in so that it works to have a tendency of "trying" to move in as close to a straight path as it may be able to do -- given the environment in which such quantized photons that move as a group, may be able to work, in so as to bring such an account into an optimum manner.  Let me explain now, what the Slater Equation works to entail.:  Take the given arbitrary genus of a Jacobian, that may be termed of, in general, as a Hamiltonian.  A Hamiltonian is a specific general case of a Jacobian, in which the states of what may be termed of here as the partial fractals as to what may be thought of as the eigenbase of a tense of a substringular momentum, are listed -- to where there will here be the condition of a physical bearing of more rows than columns listed, that are to be listed.  In one manner or another -- given the requirements of the arbitrary situation -- work to convert the Jacobian of such a case, being then here a conversion of the so-inferred Hamiltonian, into a determinant-based substrate, for the so-eluded-to eigenbase of the said Hamiltonian -- in so as to help to form a basis for solving for a set of what may be termed of here as multiplets.  This general condition -- of any of such respective given arbitrary multiplets, will then be multiplied by (1/(2^.5)), or, these so-stated multiplets will be multiplied by the sine (or the cosine in this case) of 45 degrees.  This so-mentioned math will here work to indicate, or give some sort of explanation, as to what the mean path of a certain given arbitrary phenomenon is to make, as such a phenomenology is to be translated as an integration of a sequential series of successive Laplacian-based states, over time.  Since light has a tendency to "try" to move in a straight line -- light or electromagnetic energy (light is the most commonly thought of form of electromagnetic energy) will then tend to try to move, in what may be termed of as its here relatively mean path.  So, there is a general genus of the Slater Equation -- in which one may be able to work to determine those eigenmembers, in so as to work to help determine how to be able to map-out the cohomological tracing -- of the physical path of any certain respective given arbitrary beam of electromagnetic energy, that may be in question in any such a case.  I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sam Roach.

As To Some Of The Mechanism Of One General Characteristic Of The Higgs Field

As you will remember from the last three posts -- although the Higgs Field does not usually form a direct Yukawa-based coupling upon photons, the one main general tendency of exception is for those photons, that have just struck another superstring of discrete energy permittivity -- in a Gliosis-based manner.  (This is during the first 384 instantons after any respective given arbitrary photon -- which are always of a closed loop nature -- has just struck any other respective given arbitrary superstring of discrete energy permititivity.)  This so-eluded-to tendency of direct contact, is of the topological holonomic substrate of any one given arbitrary photon -- upon the topological holonomic substrate of any other given arbitrary superstring of quantum-based energy.  When such an exception is happening -- the directly corresponding respective orbifold eigenset of any directly applicable quantum of electromagnetic energy, will have here entered a medium other than a vacuum -- to where the so-stated orbifold eigenset of electromagnetic energy will be going slower, as is according to Snell's Law.  Although the said orbifold eigenset of any such case, will tend to move slower than it ever would in a vacuum, the individually stated photons that will have here been in the process of striking the topological holonomic substrate of other quantum-based superstrings, will likewise be in the process of "bouncing" from the adjoining region of the so-stated Gliosis contact -- in such a manner to where the rebounding photonic superstrings will then be retrieved and quantized into its correlative ensuing orbifold eigensets.  This means, that -- although any orbifold eigenset of electromagnetic energy that goes through a medium other than a vacuum, will tend to always go slower than the speed of light --  the individual-based scattering photons that are being scattered by the so-eluded-to medium of any of such a general genus of case, will tend to temporarily be accelerated faster than the speed of light -- in a manner that may be described of as a "Tesla sparking" that would here be proximal in occurrence at the interacting topological  surface of the said respective given arbitrary orbifold eigenset of electromagnetic energy, that is being translated as a Hamiltonian operator, through the Lagrangian that is correlative to the mappable tracing of the said eigenset -- as it goes through the path of its Hamiltonian operand, over time.  The general idea as to the extent of the acceleration of the entropic photons, versus the extent of the slowing down of the directly corresponding orbifold eigenset of electromagnetic energy that has been slowed down by entering a medium other than a vacuum,is the following.:  If the Snell's Law correlation works to indicate that the E.M. has to have slowed down through the medium by a factor of 2, then, the correlative entropic photons of the here inferred scattering itself, will average, over the so-stated multiplicitly so-eluded-to 384 initial instantons after the so-stated direct topological contact, will then tend to go 8 times the speed of light.  If the slowing of the detectable E.M. is by a factor of 3, then, the correlative entropic photons will average, over the so-eluded-to immediate activity after the direct scattering, going 27 times the speed of light.  The Higgs Field bears a tendency of existing in a minimum of 12 spatial dimensions plus time -- over any minimal Fourier Tranformation.  A photon tends to exist in a minimum of 10 spatial dimensions plus time -- over any minimal Fourier Transformation.  Entropic photons tend to exist in a minimum of 11 spatial dimensions plus time -- over any minimal Fourier Transformation.  I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sam Roach.

Some Ideas As To The Effect Of The Higgs Field

When a given arbitrary photon that is of one orbifold eigenset of electromagnetic energy, strikes another superstring of discrete energy permittivity in a Glioisi-based manner -- over a sequential series of group-related instantons, -- the so-stated given arbitrary individual photons, of which will always (as photons) be of a bosonic nature (closed-loop and two-dimensional), will tend to "bounce" from one general directoral tense of a relative holomorphic motion, to a reversal of its said directoral tense of relative holomorphic motion, -- until the so-mentioned respective given photons of which had just scattered upon a topological-based holonomic substrate, are re-quantized back into its ensuing correlative orbifold eigenset of electromagnetic energy, that the said photon is to then be incorporated into next.  When a superstring of discrete energy permittivity perturbates -- in so as to go from one general holomorphic-based directoral flow into a relatively reversed general holomorphic-based directoral flow -- this general genus of activity works to form what is known of as an antiholomorphic Kahler condition.  The region in which  such a Kahler condition is to happen, may be viewed of or called a Kahler Manifold.  When an antiholomorphic Kahler condition happens, the so-eluded-to Fourier-based activity of such a condition -- works to initiate what may be viewed of as an eigenstate of the Wick Action.  Any respective given arbitrary Wick Action eigenstate that happens, acts as a gauge-action -- that works to act upon what may be termed of as a metric-gauge that may be viewed of as a Landau-Gisner-Action.  The Landau-Gisner-Action acts upon a Laplacian-based leveraging of norm-state-projection -- of which may be termed of as the Fischler-Suskind-Mechanism.  The Fischler-Suskind-Mechanism works to mobilize a respective given arbitrary Klein Bottle eigenstate -- via the wave-tug/wave-pull of what would here be a respective given arbitrary Higgs Boson eigenstate -- in so as to allow for the activity of what may be termed of as the Kahler-Metric.  This just-mentioned general genus of activity, works to allow for the kinematic activity of what may be termed of as Gaussian Transformations -- in so as to allow for the continued persistence and the continued existence of both substringular spaces and discrete substringular energy.
So, when any respective given arbitrary photon scatters upon any superstring, in a Gliosis-based manner -- the said photon will then tend to work to be involved in an antiholomorphic Kahler condition.  This will work -- as I have described of on this page -- in so as to cause the ensuing activity of a Kahler-Metric eigenbase.  This will then work to utilize the mobilization of the respective given Higgs-Boson eigenstate -- that would be correlative to any one given arbitrary case.  This is why any given arbitrary individual photons, that had just been scattered -- within the first 384 instantons after such so-stated discrete individual photons have just struck another superstring of discrete energy permittivity in a Gliosis-based manner -- will, over the relatively quite transient duration in which such an exception for photons is the case, only then tend to be directly under the influence of the Higgs Field.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!   Sincerely, Sam Roach.

A Little As To Why The Higgs Field Acts As Such

When any given arbitrary orbifold eigenset of electromagnetic energy, or, any given arbitrary set of orbifold eigensets of electromagnetic energy -- moves through any medium, besides through a vacuum, the so-mentioned respective eigenset or eigensets of electromagnetic energy -- will move slower, through the so-eluded-to medium -- than it would, through the generally stated medium of a vacuum.  Yet, as the individual photons that work to comprise the earlier mentioned respective eigenset or eigensets, work to strike other superstrings of discrete energy permittivity -- in a Gliosis-based manner, in the process of the scattering of electromagnetic energy -- during the initially ensuing 384 directly corresponding group-related instantons after the so-eluded-to tense of a substringular collision -- the so-stated actual photons themselves will initially spring into going faster than the speed of light, while then these so-mentioned respective photons will slow down, in so as to catch-up to their directly corresponding ensuing orbifold eigenset -- of which these are to re-quantize with, as is according to Snell's Law.  Think of it this way:  Metaphorically, view a volume-based phenomenology -- going from being in what may be termed of as a vacuum -- to where it enters what would appear to be a relatively more viscus holonomic substrate, over time.  Just as the so-stated volume-based phenomenology -- that I have here spoken of, will, as a whole, be at least mildly inhibited by the added viscum region of which it would have here entered -- what may be here termed of as the frontal region of the so-stated phenomenology, that had entered the respective new region -- will then bear what would appear to be a "Tesla-based sparking" of the components -- that would here work to comprise the metaphorical quantum of the so-eluded-to relatively frontal region of the said volume-based phenomenology, that is of this so-stated analogy.  Even though the said allagorical overall volume-based entity of this case, would tend to slow down as it enters what would appear to be a more viscus or inhibited Hamiltonian operand -- the discrete units that would here work to comprise the leading edge of the quantum-based volume-based phenomenology -- would be "flickering" faster than the overall motion of the here relatively spoken cross-product-based projection, that is of the so-eluded-to entity that had then entered the said additively-speaking more viscus region.  This basically undetectable and brief accelleration of composite photons -- that then immediately slow down, in so as to catch-up to their respective ensuing orbifold eigensets -- is a process that is due to what would amount to here -- as a very transient perturbation in the respective genus of the light-cone-gauge of the so-stated photons of the electromagnetic energy, that will have here entered a medium other than a vacuum. Photons tend to bear a non-abelian or a Yang-Mills light-cone-gauge topology.  Whenever a photon strikes another superstring of discrete energy permittivity in a Gliosis-based manner, it will then very temporarily "spring-out" into an abelian or a Kaluza-Klein light-cone-gauge topology -- while it will then, over the same metrical progression, work to tend to only bear completely Chern-Simmons singularities. -- These then so-eluded-to entropic-based photons, will, over this very brief general genus of group metric, tend to not bear any directly corresponding Yau-Exact singularities amongst each other.  This is why the here mentioned condition of entropic-based photons, which is here, relatively speaking, of a very brief part of the motion of any electromagnetic energy, as it goes through any medium other than a vacuum, is the tendency as to the only general exception as to when the Higgs Field will generally, over this said general genus of occurrence, bear a direct sway of a Yukawa Coupling upon the so-mentioned photons. Once photons directly re-quantize with any given arbitrary beam of electromagnetic energy, these tend to always re-attain working to bear a Yang-Mills light-cone-gauge topology.   I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!
Sam Roach.

A Little As To The Relationship Of The Higgs Field To Photons

Most superstrings of discrete energy permittivity and their directly corresponding counterparts -- in conjunction with their correlative Fadeev-Popov-Trace eigenstates of discrete energy impedance and their correlative light-cone-gauge eigenstates -- in order to remain as discrete energy, must routinely undergo the Kaeler-Metric, via the correlative activity of the guidance of the directly corresponding Higgs Boson eigenstates --these of which move the directly corresponding Klein Bottle eigenstates, in so as to allow for the here needed correlative Gaussian Transformations, that work to allow substringular spaces to both persist and exist, over time.  This works to mean, that most superstrings of discrete energy are routinely put through the immediate influence of what is termed of as the Higgs Field.  The exception is photons.  Photons both have no mass, as well as the condition that photons are comprised of what would otherwise be completely Lorentz-Four-Contracted superstrings of discrete energy permittivity.  This Ward-Caucy-based condition works to allow for photons -- that are Not being lagged-down by Calabi-based interactions, to just slide-out of the so-stated immediate influence of the genus of that Yukawa Coupling, that is known of as the said Higgs Field.  Yet, during the first 384 directly corresponding group-related instantons that happen -- right after any given arbitrary respective photon has struck another superstring of discrete energy permittivity in a Gliosis-based manner -- since this works to form discrete increments of entropy -- this will be the only exception as to a photon, instead, being directly influenced by the Yukawa-based pull of the Higgs Field.  This exception that I have just stated here, is when even a photon, that is normally not directly tugged by the Higgs Field, will be put into a situation -- in which it needs to re-attain its discrete fractals of energy -- in order to both persist and thereby exist as energy.  I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sam Roach.

Yukawa Couplings Versus Gliossi-based tannery

A Yukawa Coupling is a coupling that happens, whenever there is either a touch, a rub, and/or a curl, of one substringular phenomenology upon another -- particularly, when there is either a touch, a rub, and/or a curl, of one topological setting upon another.  A Gliossis-based tangency is a tangency that happens when one substringular phenomenology is directly touching another substringular phenomenology -- particularly, when there is a direct contact of one topological setting upon another.
So, a Gliossis-based tangency is always a form of a Yukawa Coupling, yet, a Yukawa Coupling is not always an example of a Gliossisi-based tangency.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

As To Relatively Njenhuis Activities Of The Kahler-Metric

Let us here consider one set of superstringular phenomenology -- that is undergoing the Kahler-Metric at one general locus, over a sequential series of correlative group-related instantons.  Let us consider this so-stated set of members of one tense of supestringular phenomenology, to be occurring in one covariant state of universal setting.  Let us now consider another set of superstringular phenomenology, that is, as well, undergoing the Kahler-Metric at another general locus, over a sequential series of correlative group-related instantons -- in a manner that is simultaneous to the activity of the here initially mentioned activity of the Kahler-Metric, via the vantage-point of a central conipoint.  Let us now consider this second so-stated set of members, of the second so-eluded-to tense of superstringular phenomenology -- to be occurring at another covariant state of universal setting.  Another words, one is here dealing with two different discrete sets of substringular phenomenology -- one of which is of one set of Hamiltonian-based eigenstates, that are of one universal setting, that is, at the so-eluded-to duration at question, going through the process of the Kahler-Metric --, while, the second of which, is a different set of Hamiltonian-based eigenstates of another universal setting, that is, at the so-eluded-to duration at question, going through the process of the Kahler-Metric.  This would then mean -- that one is dealing with two covariant sets of Hamiltonian operators, these of which may be here described of as appertaining to both -- one set of superstringular members of one universal setting, that are here working to re-attain the fractals of discrete energy that these need, in order to remain as discrete energy, this of which is kinematic -- in a covariant operational-based manner, to another set of superstringualr members that are of a different universal setting, that are, as well, working to re-attain the fractals of discrete energy that these need, in order to remain as discrete energy.   The first so-mentioned set of Hamiltonian-based operators of one universal setting -- that are here undergoing a tense of the Kahler-Meteric -- are a group of substringular members, that, although these are of a Real Reimmanian-base nature among the codifferentiable and the codeterminable kinematic activity that is amongst themselves, these same substringular members are here delineated in such a manner -- in so that these are of a Njenhuis-based geometrical distribution, when this is taken in a Li-based Gaussian genus of a mappable tracing, as is taken from the first so-stated group of Hamiltonian operators that are of one universal setting -- relative to the second mentioned set of superstringular members of Hamiltonian-based operation that are of a different universal setting, over time.  I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sam Roach.

As To Adjoining Charges

Let us here consider a given arbitrary orbifold eigenset, that is here of one relative Real Reimmanian-based setting -- this said eigenset of which will here delineate-out a charge, in a cross-product-based releasing of such a so-eluded-to charge.  Let us now consider the condition that the charge that is here being delineated or released from the respective given arbitrary orbifold eigenset, to be of a relatively Real Reimmanian-based nature -- in so as to work to form what may here be considered of, as an initial tense of a resulting Rham-based cohomology, when this is taken in terms of the mappable tracing of those ghost-based indices that act as the physical memory of the here mentioned Real-based charge.  Such a charge will have here been released from the said given orbifold eigenset, over a relatively transient period of time.  Let us now consider the condition -- that there will here be the situation that is to be extrapolated in this given arbitrary case scenario, of an additional covariant orbifold eigenset -- that is of a Li-based Njenhuis tense of inter-relation -- towards the initially mentioned orbifold eigenset of this given case.  Although the relative charge of the second mentioned orbifold eigenset, tends to be  -- to its respective given arbitrary universal setting -- of a relatively Real Reimmanian-based nature, when this is taken in correlation to the relatively Real-based charges of the other orbifold eigensets of its same general tense of universal setting, -- the here given arbitrary charges that would be delineated from the second so-stated given orbifold eigenset, will be of a Njenhuis charge inter-relation, when this is taken towards the charge that had been considered to have been released from the initially stated orbifold eigenset of this discussion.  This would then mean -- that, charges that are of one universal setting, that are of a relative Real-based nature when this is taken in relation to one another, will tend to be of a Njenhuis-based nature, when such so-mentioned charges are extrapolated in comparison to what would otherwise be the relatively Real-based charges of orbifolds that are of a different universal setting.
Yet, if one were to have a Njenhuis perturbation of singularity -- that would here work to form a kinematic tangency to the relative Real Reimmanian Plane of one respective given arbitrary case scenario -- that would refer to the altered field propagation of the charge that would here be delineated from an initial given arbitrary orbifold eigenset  -- one will then tend to have the bearings of a relatively Njenhuis charge, that would then be delineated from the Majorana-Weyl-Invariant field of the initial orbifold eigenset that was eluded-to in this sentence.  Such a stemming of one relatively Njenhuis-based charge -- from an initial Real-based charge -- may often work to form a Yakawa Coupling, that may often here indirectly inter-relate the potentially faded resultant charge that had been released from one universal setting, to the Real-based resultant charge that had been released from another universal setting.  I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sam Roach.

Orbifolds and Relative Njenhuis Charges

Let us here consider one given arbitrary orbifold eigenset -- this said eigenset of which is of a Real Reimmanian-based nature, when this is taken in a relative manner to another respective given arbitrary proximal orbifold eigenset.  This would work to mean, that both of the so-mentioned orbifold eigensets -- would here bear Real-based spaces, when this is taken as one viable set of superstrings working to perform one specific function, to another respective set of superstrings working to perform another specific function, over a covariant duration of a successive sequence of group-related instantons.  This would then tend to mean -- that each of the superstrings, that would here work to comprise both of the here so-mentioned respective given arbitrary orbifold eigensets, that have been described of in this said given case scenario -- would tend to be of a Real Reimmanian eigenbase -- when this is taken, in terms of the condition that each of such superstrings of discrete energy permititivity, that would here work to comprise such a so-eluded-to covariant, codeterminable, and codifferentiable functioning of one group-related operation to another functioning of group-related operation, would then tend to work to bear both an interdependent and a viable inter-relationship of one viable Gaussian-based format to another viable Gaussian-based format.  Now, let us say that one had a quantum of charge that was released from one of these said given arbitrary orbifold eigensets -- this of which would bear a viable covariant mode, when this is extrapolated to the here relatively Real-based quantum of charge, that would here be released from the other of such respective given arbitrary orbifold eigensets of this given case scenario.  Now, let us say that one would here consider the Njenhuis existence of another orbifold eigenset -- that was actual, yet, of another tense of a Gaussian-based universal setting.  This so-eluded-to given arbitrary Njenhuis-based orbifold eigenset, would then potentially release a charge -- that, although it would tend to be of a Real-based eigenbase of charge  when this is taken relative to another of such orbifold eigensets that would be of the same universal setting - it would NOT tend to be of a Real Reimmanian-based eigenbase of charge, when this is taken relative to the initially so-eluded-to respective given arbitrary orbifold eigensets that I had discussed in the beginning of this so-mentioned given arbitrary case scenario.  In other words, charges that come from covariant-based orbifold eigensets -- that are of a relatively Real Reimmanian-based Gaussian spacing, when this is taken from one of these eigensets relative to the others that are proximal -- tend to be orbifold eigensets that are both viable and of the same universal setting.
To Be Continued!  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

On The Format of Njenhuis Charges In General

Let us here consider the Doubolt cohomological flow of a Njenhuis charge -- that may be mapped-out in a Laplacian-based manner, after the overall motion of the said charge, over the so-eluded-to ghost-based pattern -- that such a respective given arbitrary relatively Imaginary charge is to make, over a relatively transient period of time.  Let us now think of the condition of a given arbitrary Njenhuis or Imaginary charge -- a charge that is orphoganal to a certain Real-based charge, to where this Real-based charge, of which is propagated through a discrete Lagrangian, is here being propagated as such, over time.  Let us now say that the so-stated Real-based charge is propagated as a Rham-based cohomological flow, while, the here tangent Njenhuis flow of charge, that is normal to the plane of the flow of the Real-based charge, is initially hermitian, yet, is of a relatively Doubolt nature -- due to it being orphoganal to the here relatively Real Reimmanian Plane.  Let us now say, that the so-mentioned Njenhuis flow of charge is pulled into a condition -- in so as to form a  Lagrangian-based Chern-Simmons singularity, in its cohomological wave-based pattern -- in so as to here work to pull the so-stated Njenhuis flow of charge (that is here of a discrete nature) -- in a manner that is normal to its Li-based Gaussian plane of flow.  The tendency of this, is to often be able to make -- what was directly previously a tense of a Njenhuis flow of charge -- to act to then at least become, in a transient manner, a tense of a flow of a relatively Real-based charge, for a certain potentially extrapolatable sequential series of group-related instantons -- as this may be mapped-out over a tracing of the here so-eluded-to Doubolt cohomological pattern.  This may then happen in so as to then work to become of the nature of a Rham-based cohomology, from the time after that such a flow of charge is converted into a Real Reimmanian-based charge that is to happen here, after the earlier so-mentioned formation of the said given arbitrary genus of the here respective Lagrangian-related Chern-Simmons singularity that I had mentioned -- until there is  either an effectual Yakawa Coupling that woks to form an additional Lagrangian-based Chern-Simmons singularity, or, until there is an effectual Yakawa Coupling that works to form a metrical-based Chern-Simmons singularity.  This genus of occurrence may be mapped-out, over the formation of the here directly related ghost-based cohomological pattern, over time.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued! Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Stuff About Core-Field-Density

Here is some information as to the manner of the phenomena of core-field-density in the substringular.
The closer that one gets to the topological surface of anything in the substringular -- such as when one gets closer to the topological surface of a superstring of discrete energy permittivity --, the general tendency, is that there will then be the condition to where that the number of both the mini-stringular segments and the number of mini-stringular projections, is then of both a greater quantity and a greater scalar magnitude.
This tendency works to cause the condition, to where, the amount of topological-based holonomic substrate will then be of a greater amount of both entity-based cohomological-based index, a greater amount of entity-based  ground-state-based index, and also, of a greater amount of entity-based norm-state index -- to where, there will then be a higher scalar magnitude as to the number of Hodge-based indices, that are here to be related to the existence of those fractals of Hamiltonian-based operation, that are necessary for both the continued existence and the continued activity of the interdependence of each of such discrete substringular quanta, towards each of the other viable of such respective discrete substringular quanta -- that are of a codifferentiable, covariant, and of a  codeterminable nature towards each other.  To Be Continued!  I will continue with the suspense later!
Sincerely, Sam Roach.

As To What Works To Comprise Core-Field-Density Of Superstrings

What works to comprise the core-field-density of superstrings, is primarily a combination of the following: 1)  The Hodge-Index as to the number of second-ordered point particles that work to comprise an increment of the holonomic substrate of a given arbitrary quantum of the said core-field-density.  2)  The genus of the stratum of the topological contour of a holonomic substrate, that works to form a quantum of core-field-density.  3)  The Hodge-Index of any possible directly corresponding point commutators, that work to help comprise the said quantum of core-field-density.  (Point commutators are a tense of first-ordered point particles, at the substringular level.)  4)  Both the tense of the transversal, the radial, and the spin-orbital momenta-based indices -- that are propagated by the said core-field-density.  5)  The piece-wise continuous Laplacian-based mapping -- that is here directly related to both the degree and the manner of the compactification of the said core-field-density.  6)  Both the existence and the activity of the ghost-based indices that act in a Yakawa if not in a Gliossi-based manner, upon a said core-field-density.  &7)  Both the manner and the activity of the Lagrangian-based paths -- that work to inter-relate the Hamiltonian-based operands, that allow for the needed interactions of one given arbitrary and respective quantum of core-field-density -- to another of such Hamiltonian-based operands.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

A Little About The Conservation of Core-Field-Density

When one is to have a given arbitrary orbifold eigenset -- that works to bear a condition of stability, in terms of both its charge and also in terms of the Hodge-Index that is of its overall substringular members, per extrapolated time -- then, the tendency is, that, for every increment of core-field-density that is fed into the respective said orbifold eigenset, in the form of the holonomic substrate that is directly associated with the so-stated tense of the charge of the so-stated orbifold eigenset, there is an increment of core-field-density that is moving out of the respective said orbifold eigenset -- in the form of the holonomic substrate that is directly associated with the so-stated tense of the charge of the here mentioned general genus of eigenset that is being discussed here.  This would, as well, mean -- that, for every increment of one tense of polarity that is directly associated with an increment of one genus of Real-based charge, that is then in this case to be fed into the respective given arbitrary orbifold eigenset of this given situation, there will be the tendency of there being a like-based increment of the same general tense of polarity -- that is being taken out of the Ward-Neumman bounds of the said orbifold eigenset, in terms of the directly associated genus of the respective given arbitrary Real-based charge that I had eluded-to, earlier in this sentence.  This would then mean -- that , for every Njenhuis-based charge of one tense of polarity and scalar magnitude -- that would then here be stemming from each Real-based charge, at an angle of edge-wise tangency, that is being fed into and/or going out from the so-mentioned orbifold eigenset of such a case, there will then tend to be the equivalence of another Njenhuis-based charge of the same general genus of both polarity and orphoganation -- that would here be of a tendency of one then having the equivalence of another of such Njenhuis charges, that would then be stemming from another of such Real-based charges -- in such a manner that is respectively yet indirectly being fed out of and/or being fed into the here discussed orbifold eigenset of such a case, at an angle of edge-wise tangency, at another locus that is relatively proximal to the general locus of the here so mentioned orbifold eigenset of such a case.  I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

More About Njenhuis Cohomologies

When one has a charge of, say for instance, one positive electron volt (1.6*10^(-19) of a Coulumb) -- that is working to leave the Ward-Neumman bounds of a given arbitrary orbifold eigenset -- there would then be a simultaneous charge ( from the vantage-point of a central conipoint) of one Imaginary positive electron volt (I*1.6*10^(-19) of a Coulumb), stemming from the so-stated Real Reimmanian-based charge, as I have eluded-to in the last post.  So, when one is to map-out the cohomological basis as to the flow of topological-based setting -- from the initial region of propagation of the said Real-based charge, to the correlative initial region of propagation of the so-eluded-to Njenhuis-based charge of this respective given arbitrary case scenario, one will here have what may be described of as a Doubolt cohomology.  This is whether or not the bend -- that is directly associated with the flow of mappable tracing, is of a Lagrangian-based Chern-Simmons manner of singularity or not.  This is because the Laplacian-based wave-tug/wave-pull of the mappable tracing, that is of the correlative ghost-based indices -- that goes from the mapping of the propagation of a positive Real-based charge, to the mapping of the propagation of a positive Njenhuis-based charge, is a movement, that works to go in the direction of a homotopic-based flow,  that goes from the locus of a Real-based plane -- towards the locus of a Njenhuis-based plane.  I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely,Sam Roach.

More As To The Indistinguishable Differences In Charge

When there is an indistinguishable difference in the Real Reimmanian-based charges of any given arbitrary orbifold eigenset, that works to exhibit such a said condition -- there is, as well, an indistinguishable difference in the directly associated Imaginary or Njenhuis-based charges, that are also associated with the so-stated orbifold eigenset.  For instance, let us say that one is to extrapolate as to what is going on with a given arbitrary orbifold eigenset -- to where this said eigenset, of which here is detected -- in so as to be stable in its charge.  This means -- over the time in which such an eigenset is charge-wise stable -- that for every charge that works to enter the said orbifold eigenset, that there is simulteneously (through the vantage-point of a central conipoint) the equivalence of a like charge (in terms of the general genus of parity) that works to leave the so-mentioned orbifold eigenset.  As such charges are leaving and entering the Ward-Caucy bounds of the said eigenset (mainly, as such said charges are leaving and entering the Ward-Neumman bounds of the said eigenset), as taken per each of such individually taken Real Reimmanian charges, that there is a Njenhuis or an Imaginary-based charge, that is of the same general genus of polarity -- that is then stemming from the so-eluded-to Real Reimmanian-based charge -- in a manner that is orphoganal to both the wave-tug/wave-pull of that holonomic substrate that is here correlative to the motion of the so-stated Real-based charge's tendency of propagation in the relative holomorphic direction, as well as simultaneously (through the vantage-point of a central conipoint) there also being a condition of an orphoganal stemnming of the so-eluded-to Njenhuis-based charge, that is edge-wise tangent at the locus of a relative endpoint-based singularity, to the Real Reimmanian-based plane of such a respective given arbitrary case scenario.  Such a multiplicitly-taken endpoint of a covariant-based tangency, will tend to be of a Lagrangian-based Chern-Simmons singularity, over time.  To Be Continued! Sam Roach.

A Little About The Stability Of Charge

Let us consider a specific example -- in so as to elaborate upon a certain genus of a situation.  Let us say that one were to have a certain given arbitrary orbifold eigenset, that is differentiating kinematically in a conformally invariant manner over a set period of time -- at a locus that works to exhibit a Majorana-Weyl-Invariant-Mode, over a sequential series of group-related instantons.  The so-stated orbifold eigenset of such a respective given arbitrary case, will here be stable in its charge.  This means, that, if the said orbifold eigenset is releasing and/or gaining the holononomic substrate of charge -- for every charge that such an orbifold eigenset is to receive per time, it is then respectively gaining and/or releasing the same scalar magnitude of charge -- in a simultaneous manner (through the vantage-point of a central conipoint) -- as the so-eluded-to  holonomic substrate of charge that is being fed into such a said orbifold eigenset will here then be equal to the scalar magnitude of charge of holonomic substrate that is being released by the so-mentioned orbifold eigenset in question.  So, in this given case, the condition of the stability of the so-stated orbifold eigenset, is a case of indistinguishable difference -- there is here both a gain and a release of charge that is here being delineated from the Majorana-Weyl-Invariant-based locus, that is of the so-stated orbifold eigenset.  Yet, such a mentioned gain and release of charge -- is then being simultaneoulsy released and gained (through the vantage-point of a central conipoint), by the so-eluded-to manifold or membrane of superstrings that will here operate in so as to perform a specific function, in so as to form an extrapolated set of interdependent quanta of discrete energy -- that may then be detected as, instead, being of a stable condition -- in terms of its respective charge.  I will continue with the suspense later!  To be continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Involving An Idea Relating to Stoke's Theorem

First of all, do you know that, when involving an idea --such as Stoke's Theorem, one may have multiple types of formats of surface areas, that each involve the same two-dimensional-based scalar amplitude as to the amount of spatial-based coverage of such a relatively similar genus of a flat-spaced planar-based Hodge-based size?  For instance, one may have two planes, that, when only taking into condsideration the spatial parameters of two dimensions of dimensionality, to where both involve a square of three arbitrary given units of Hodge-based length by three arbitrary given units of Hodge-based width, yet, when one is here to consider, instead, the framework of an involvement that works to include ten spatial dimensions plus time to the two so-eluded-to planes -- the two respective given arbitrary planes may then take upon themselves two entirely different mappable tracings, that may be extrapolated.  So, if one were to take two analagous planes of a Hamiltonian operand-based nature -- that would here involve two covariant, codeterminable, and codifferentiable loci of two different individually taken orbifold eigensets -- with a Real Reimmanian-based charge being propagated from these so-stated orbifold eigensets, over a simultaneous sequential-based series of group-related instantons (through the vantage-point of a central conipoint), if the other spatial parameters that would here directly work to explain the substringular setting of the here relative substringular neighborhood of two different individually taken orbifold eigensets, is of two different Ward-Caucy-based contours -- over the cohomological-based topology of the said two different planar-based regions, in which the two different respective so-eluded-to orbifold eigensets are to bear a propagated Real Reimmanian-based charge, then, if the two said planes of substringular neighborhood may be extrapolated via a theoretical mapping that acts as an attempt to form a trivial isomorphic-based tracing, the resultant Laplacian-based directoral-based topological sway -- that would then work to describe both the locus and the motion as to the where, when and how that the then extrapolated two individual Njenhuis-based charges that would then accompany both of the respective individually taken Real-based charges, would then be of a different cohomological-based index of both mappable starting locus as well as then being of a different cohomological-based index of their resultant projections, over time.  To Be Continued!  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Another Interim In-Between Parts To Session 11 of Course 19 -- The Klein Bottle and Orbifold Differentiation

Let us say that one were to have a given arbitrary case scenario -- in which a given orbifold eigenset, that is moving in its Ward-Caucy-based Majorana-Weyl-Invariant-Mode, to where such a said orbifold were to have a charge of one electron volt (1.6*10^(-19) of one Coulomb) -- that would here be propagated away from its so-eluded-to Ward-Neumman bounds.  Let us say that the so-mentioned propagated charge -- was delineated, as a cross-product that would here go away from the Ward-Neumman bounds of the said orbifold eigenset, in both the here relatively holomorphic direction, and, through a discrete Lagrangian, that was here to move through what would here be the relative Real Reimmanian Plane.  This would then mean that, in such a case, there would then be a simultaneous charge (through the vantage point of a central conipoint), of one Imaginary electron volt -- being propagated in a directoral-based manner -- in both a direction that would then be both orphoganal and Njenhuis to the here relatively holomorphic direction of such an arbitrary case, as well as such an Imaginary charge being both orphoganal and Njenhuis to the discrete Lagrangian of the said propagation of the here stated Real Reimmanian charge, that is here Gliossi to the relatively Real Reimmanian Plane, that is of this here respective given arbitrary so-stated case scenario.
To Be Continued!  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

A Little Bit Extra About Gliossi Contact

The more closely that two or more interacting adjacent discrete quanta of energy are, to having a covariant-based wobbling of only ~1.104735878*10^(-81)I degrees, relative of each to one another, the more likely that the said discrete quanta of energy are to then bear a tendency of having certain given arbitrary and associated directly corresponding orbifolds, that will then work to bear a Gliossi-based contact with one another.  The longer that these so-eluded-to orbifolds, that are here adjacent -- are to be of such a relatively similar general Gaussian-based format, if not of the same general Gaussian-based format -- the more likely that such orbifolds will then work to bear such a tendency, in so as to come into either a Yakawa-based contact, if not coming into a direct physical contact -- or, in other words, into a Gliossi-based contact. A Gliossi-based contact is always a general genus of a  Yakawa Coupling, yet, a Yakawa Coupling is Not always a Gliossi-based contact. To Be Continued!  I will continue with the suspense later!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

An Interim In-Between Parts to Session 11 of Course 19 -- The Klein Bottle and Orbifold Differentiation

The overall degrees of freedom that exist in two spatial parameters of dimensionality is 2pi.  The overall degrees of freedom that exist in three spatial parameters of dimensionality is 4pi.  The overall degrees of freedom that exist in four spatial parameters of dimensionality is 4piI. ... The overall degrees of freedom that exist in 96 spatial parameters of dimensionality is 96piI.  On account of this so-stated set of conditions -- if the relative tense of a Njenhuis basis of orphoganation, in a comparison of two different distinct substringular phenomena -- that are here to be extrapolated, in terms of the correlative degree of the wobbling of their respective given arbitrary correlative Fadeev-Popov-Trace eigenstates, that work to comprise the said two different distinct phenomena, is of a higher scalar amplitude -- the more of a tendency that there will then be, of the two respective distinct different substringular entities, that are here being compared, to be of more of a relatively remote nature -- over any respective given arbitrary time period, in which the two so-eluded-to physical phenomena that are here to be compared, in a Fourier-based manner.  This is given as a comparison -- in terms of their relative covariant, codifferentiable, and codeterminable Ward-Caucy conditions, in the process of the said comparison of the so-mentioned Fourier Transformations -- that are of the two said distinct and differing so-stated substringular physical phenomena, that are here to be contrasted.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Part One of Session 11 of Course 19 -- The Klein Bottle and Orbifold Differentiation

Theoretically, the solution to e^(2piI) is of the nature of:  Isin(2pi) + cos(2pi) -- which equals one (1).  So, theoretically, e(4piI) is of the nature of:  Isin(4pi) + cos(4pi) --  which equals one (1).  Yet, a charge of e^(4piI) is Not necessarily ln(e^4piI) or ln(1) or 0.  The directly prior assumption -- that e^(I*(a discrete integer-based variable)*pi), is to then always be 0 -- works to be true, if the directly corresponding scalar amplitude of such a case, is of a given scalar amplitude, that is pertinent to such a given charge that will then work to form a radial delineation, instead of a linear delineation.  Yet, if the said correlative charge of such a case is, instead, of a linear respective delineation -- such a tense of the so-eluded-to Imaginary or Njenhuis charge, may then bear a discrete and actual genus, that is physically affectual upon its immediate environment.
That's all for now.  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Part Five of the Tenth Session of Course 19 -- The Klein Bottle and Orbifold Differentiation

Any given arbitrary nucleon, is a genus of a phenomenology -- that tend to exist in what may be termed of as an F-brane.  Nucleons in an atom are generally conformally invariant at their relatively proximal locus, when this is taken at the Poincaire level -- when this is taken into consideration, at a field that is Gliossi to the core-field-density of the said multiplicit nucleon, as an index of being of a genus of an entity of holonomic substrate, that would here bear a directly corresponding Majorana-Weyl-Invariant-Mode that is thence at the locus that is Yakawa to the substringular neighborhood of such an orbifold eigenset of Ward-Caucy-based conditions.  So, in other words, let us say that a certain given arbitrary atom is moving as a Noether-based field, that is either relatively stationary or relatively kinematic, over time.  Let us then say that the respective said atom is of what may be termed of here as being of a stable nature.  This would then mean, that the nucleus of the so-stated given arbitrary atom -- would then tend to be stable, as well.  This would then mean, that the nucleon or nucleons of such a respective given arbitrary case -- as substringular member(s) of the directly corresponding atom -- are then existing, as from within the so-stated atom of this case -- in a tense of conformal invariance.  Under such a genus of the so-mentioned Ward-Caucy conditions -- such a tense of the one or more members of such an eluded-to nucleus of an atom -- is going to tend to be of a relatively optimum state of rest, whether the said respective atom is moving in and or itself in a Noether-based flow or not. This does not include the characteristic-based conditions, of as to whether or not the respective atom is moving in a tachyonic-based manner or not, though.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Part Four of Session 10 of Course 19 -- The Klein Bottle and Orbifold Differentiation

If a superstringular manifold works to help bear the condition of describing just the Real Reimmanian-based dimensional object of holonomic substrate, that is implied by the Hamiltonian operation of any respective given arbitrary orbifold eigenset in question -- the so-eluded-to superstringular manifold, that would then thus be described of as such, would be what may be termed of as a substringular membrane that would here involve only the consideration of three spatial dimensions, since such a limited consideration would then not be including a monitoring of those Njenhuis spatial parameters of dimensionalilty -- that are as well inherent in the extrapolation of both the Ward-Neumman existence and the overall motion of the so-mentioned and eluded-to orbifold eigenset, that is of this respective given arbitrary consideration.  This would then work to add more of a lack of an appropriate tense of expectation values, to the effort of then working to bear the otherwise applicable probabilities as to both the Laplacian-based differentiation and the Fourier-based differentiation of that orbifold that is then not being fully studied in such a genus of a limited case.  So, the more that is understood as to both the Laplacian-based conditions and the Fourier-based conditions of an orbifold eigenset -- the better that both the so-stated Ward-Neumman existence and the so-stated kinematic-based activity of such a said orbifold eigenset may be predicted, as to the what, where, how, and why, that such a so-stated group of superstrings that operate in so as to perform a specific function is to behave, over time and space.  That is why it is necessary to understand all of the directly applicable respective Njenhuis spatial parameters of dimensionality, that work to bear a Yakawa-based wave-tug/wave-pull upon the Gliossi-based topological surface of any respective given arbitrary single functioning holonomic substrate of a respective tense of Ward-Caucy bounds, of any respective given arbitrary orbifold eigenset that is to be extrapolated -- in order to maximize those expectation values, that are needed in order to better predict any discrete quanta of Hamiltonian operation, over time.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Some More as to the Big-Bang

Once the Logos struck the core of the Big-Bang, in 96 pairs of two different spatial directions -- as an equal and opposite reaction, and from the opposite general genus of directionality -- the general contents, that had worked to comprise the said core of the Big-Bang, were pulled from the initial state of implosion -- into a tense of an outward moving expansion, that then worked to form the initial basis of the substringular, in the process of the formation of what we now term of as the multiverse.  (From a dot-product of the Logos coming upon the said core of the Big-Bang, to a cross-product of the said core of the Big-Bang being pulled outward, as an equal and opposite response.)  Each so-mentioned pair of directions, of which had initially worked to strike the said core of the Big-Bang, worked to form what we may consider to be what is now the 96 spatial parameters of dimensionality of overall space-time-fabric -- that had come together in so as to work to form the overall Li-based Gaussian symmetry of the said space-time-fabric. These so-stated dimensional parameters happened in pairs, on account of the condition, that every spatial dimension, as an ansantz, bears at least two general bases of direction (a holomorphic or left-moving direction, and, an antiholomorphic or right-moving direction), in order to make physical sense.  This also works to show the condition, that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction, happening in the opposite general direction.  The force of the initial strike of the Logos upon the core of the Big-Bang, is what had worked upon the tiny point particles that had initially comprised the shells and the center of the so-stated core of the Big-Bang -- in such a manner in so as to form the isoelliptabelianoid (the initial Higgs Boson eigenstate), of which had then worked to form the initial superstrings of space-time-fabric.  Once superstrings were formed, these had then worked to form the multivarious array of the phenomenology of physical space and time, over the succession of the flow of many sequential group-related instantons -- in so as to work to eventually form the physical world in which we live in today.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.

Some Information As To The Big-Bang

Imagine a balloon that is being being inflated.  Take this as an analogy to the expansion of our Universe.  In an allegorical-based manner, as our Universe is being expanded -- everywhere along the outer topology of the here expanded Universe, at the multiplicit so-infered locus that is Gliossi to the so-eluded-to surface that is here being expanded, at the Poincaire level, this is where the Big-Bang happened, is happening, and will always be happening -- in so long as we have the Universe in which we live.  This is the main reason as to why, in a very real sense, there is no center or edge to  neither our Universe -- nor to any Universe of the Multiverse.  Incidently, everywhere where you go in our Universe -- within about 1 millimeter from any spot that you can imagine, where there are superstrings of discrete energy permittivity -- there is phenomenological-based indices from all of the kinematic-based Universes that are of our set of parallel Universes.  As well, everywhere where you go in our Universe -- within about 3 millimeters from any spot that you can imagine, where there are superstrings of discrete energy permittivity -- there is phenomenological-based indices of residue that are from all of the kinematic-based universes that are of all of the Universes of our Multiverse.  This is not, though, including any external mirroring of either our set of universes, nor is this including any external mirroring of the overall set of universes of our Multiverse.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Sam Roach.