More As To The Recycling Of Relativistic Cohomology

Mass-Bearing superstrings of discrete energy permittivity, tend to form what I term of as being Gliosis-Sherk-Olive cohomology.  As eigenstates of such so-eluded-to GSO cohomology, are to be scattered in an anharmonic manner -- these eigenstates then work, to be changed into what I term of as being the holonomic substrate of particles called dilatons and dilatinos.  This just mentioned general genus of activity, is here to be happening on the relative Real Reimmanain Plane -- whereupon discrete energy permittivity, is here to continue to be both iterated and reiterated over time.  The thence formed dilatons and dilatinos, are to then to be pushed off of the said relative Real Reimmanian Plane, in the process of working to help at recycling the local presence of norm-state-projections, in so as to refurbish the holonomic substrate of those so-eluded-to point commutators, to where, such a recycling of cohomology is here to be necessary as well, for the formation of cohomology to be able to occur off of the Real Reimmanian Plane.  Without such recycling, this situation would otherwise amount to, as well, an excessive build-up of localized Hamiltonian operators, that would no longer be able to commute -- which would end-up stopping the existence of energy.  Such a relative wave-tug, that is here to push such said dilatons and dilatinos off of the relative Real Reimmanian Plane, happens, on account of the resultant Ward-Cauchy-based angling, in which the earlier inferred Rayleigh scattering of the said GSO cohomology-related eigenstates -- which was here to be scattered in such an anharmonic manner, in so as to work to form a tense of cohomology, that may be described of as being of the nature of what I term of as being Neilson-Kolosh cohomology-related eigenstates.  As these said eigenstates of a Neilson-Kolosh cohomology, are to come together at a general locus that is off of the relative Real Reimmanian Plane, the holonomic substrate of such gathered cohomology-related eigenstates, are to come together -- in so as to work to form the indistinguishably different eigenindices, that work to comprise what I term of here as being "gravitons" and "gravitinos."  The motion of the cohomological eigenstates of "gravitons" and "gravitinos," is to then to work to indirectly induce the gauge-bosons (the E(6)XE(6) strings), of which are on the relative Real Reimmanian Plane, to act in so as to pluck the directly corresponding second-order light-cone-gauge eigenstates like a harp -- in so as to work to form Schwinger-Indices.  Such a general genus of Schwinger-Indices will then act, in so as to work to influence both the general formation and the general activity of the four fundamental forces of nature, -- such as gravity.  In the meanwhile, that general cohomology of both the said "gravitons" and "gravitinos," that was here to be scattered in an anharmonic manner, due to the resultant Ward-Cauchy-based angling, in which the earlier inferred Rayleigh scattering is to occur, -- is to be recycled back into the relative Real Reimmanian Plane, -- in so as to refurbish the holonomic substrate of those norm-state-projections, that are necessary for both the formation of cohomology to occur at this said relativistic Plane, as well as to work to allow for the commutation of the multiplicit discrete quanta of energy.  My model of string theory is becoming clearer in my mind.
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Samuel David Roach.

A Special Action

So -- what about the "i*PI(del) Action?"  The "i*PI" discussed here, has to to do with the condition, that there is here to be a Laplacian-based back-and-forth toggling of partition-based discrepancies -- that are delineated from the relative holomorphic positioning(s) at the first placement of such partition-based discrepancies, to the relative reverse-holomorphic positioning(s) at the next placement of such discrepancies, and so-on.  This is taken the other way around, for the respective directly corresponding counter string.  (From relative reverse-holomorphic positioning(s) to relative holomorphic positioning(s).)  Such general tendencies are then to  happen, until all of the delineations of those partition-based discrepancies may then be accounted for -- along the topological curvature of the general superstring and its counterstring.  By far, most superstrings are bosonic.  Let's say that we were to call the relative forward motion of a superstring to be the relative forward-holomorphic direction.  If 0 PI is here to be an "origin" at the centrally Nijenhuis-to-reverse-holomorphic side of the topology of a superstring -- if one were to trace around the said circle, in both a holomorphic and in a reverse-holomorphic manner at the same time, one would then end-up at the relative positioning of PI.  The "i" has to do with the earlier mentioned back-and-forth Laplacian-based toggling, that is of the said respective partition-based discrepancies.  The just mentioned discrepancies are a relative-motion-related phenomenology of holonomic spur, as taken along the topological delineation of the general Laplacian-related vibrational curvature, that is of the central core-field-density of the cohomological mappable-tracing -- that is of the GSO-based coniaxial of any one given arbitrary superstring of discrete energy permittivity during BRST. The exchange of such partition-based discrepancies is the condition of homotopic residue.  The kinetic action of homotopic residue is thence the "i*PI(del) Action."
I will continue with the suspense later!  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Samuel David Roach.

Accelerating Orbifold Eigensets

If any given arbitrary Calabi-Yau-based orbifold eigenset is to be moving at a constant Ward-Caucy-based velocity over time, then the resulting GSO ghosts that are to then be formed by the so-stated orbifold eigenset will then tend to bear at least a transient tense of a Rham-based cohomology.  Yet, if the same said Calabi-Yau-based orbifold eigenset is to accelerate in the course of its translation from one spot in the substringular to the next, then the resulting GSO ghosts that are then to be formed will tend to form at least some metrical-based Chern-Simons singularities -- which will thereby tend to form at least a transient tense of a Doubolt cohomology, over the so-eluded-to group-metric that is to be associated with this.
To Be Continued!  Sam Roach.

Ghost Inhibitor Eigenmatrices

Gliossi-Sherk-Olive fields inter-bind Rarita Structure-based field eigenstates via group attractor field eigensets that here act as ghost inhibitor eigenmatrices.  Individually, such an eigenmatrix, when involved with a common Gaussian format for these directly associated orbifolds that I have just eluded to, forms a field network that inter-twines the eluded to directly corresponding orbifolds into being of the same universe.  This works to make these discussed eluded to orbifolds to be of a trivial Li Algebra genus -- that is then causing these so-stated orbifolds to be of the same universal setting.  The said genus of ghost inhibitor eigenmatrix discussed here bears chiral Njenhuis Campbell-Hausendorf tensors that help work to form a Jacobian eigenbasis at the locus of the cite of the field network that ties together the so-stated Rarita Structure field eigenstates with the so-stated Gliossi-Sherk-Olive field eigenstates. This brings these given arbitrary orbifolds into then being of the same gravity-based universal setting.  This would then mean here that the corresponding eluded to gravitational indices will, in this case, bear a Yakawa-based interconnection that is field-wise Gliossi at the Poincaire level.
I am gradually building up the suspense.  To Be Continued!  Sincerely, Samuel David Roach.