The activity of fission, works to form an example of a tangential flow; and,
the activity of fusion, works to form an example of a co-tangential flow.
Therefore, the action itself of fission, is an example of a Cevita Action; and,
the action itself of fusion, is an example of a Wess-Zumino Action.
I will continue with the suspense later! To Be Continued! Sincerely, Sam Roach.
Showing posts with label co-tangential flow. Show all posts
Showing posts with label co-tangential flow. Show all posts
Monday, August 5, 2019
Tangential Flow Versus Co-Tangential Flow
A tangential flow, is a flow that diverges from a central source -- whereas;
a co-tangential flow, is a flow that converges upon a central source. To Be Continued! Sincerely, Sam.
a co-tangential flow, is a flow that converges upon a central source. To Be Continued! Sincerely, Sam.
About A Slater Euclidean Metric
Let us consider here, what is to be happening -- if the following two things were to be happening, as two certain given arbitrary orbifold eigensets, -- are to be going through their respective unitary mean Lagrangian paths, over time:
1) Let us say one were to have a tangential flow, via the course of an "identity function."
2) Let us also say that one were to have a co-tangential flow, via the course of an "identity function."
Consequently:
One would thus have two different situations, to where each one is here to exhibit the following common characteristic: Both would bear a discrete & a topologically smooth Slater euclidean metric, that is here to be homeomorphic -- but Not flat.
Let's next say, that (the secant of (e^(the Cevita-based Flow))) = 2^.5, and;
(the co-secant of (e^(the Wess-Zumino-based Flow))) = 2^.5.
As a result: ((((Integral Of (e^(the del of the Cevita-based Flow))))
= (((the inverse secant of e^((the Cevita-based Flow))) = 45 degrees.; and;
(((((Integral Of (e^(the del of the Wess-Zumino-based Flow)) ))
= (((the inverse co-secant of e^((the Wess-Zumino-based Flow))) = 45 degrees.
This would then work to make the reciprocal of the Inverse of both of the immediately prior, to be equal to (1/(2^.5)).
This eludes to the condition -- that the tense of either of such a flow as coming towards "you," would bear a tense of the cosine of 45 degrees (dot-product), or, of (1/2^.5);
And, this eludes, as well, to the condition -- that the tense of either of such a flow as going away from "you," would bear a tense of the sine of 45 degrees (cross-product), or, of (1/2^.5).
To Be Continued! Sam Roach.
1) Let us say one were to have a tangential flow, via the course of an "identity function."
2) Let us also say that one were to have a co-tangential flow, via the course of an "identity function."
Consequently:
One would thus have two different situations, to where each one is here to exhibit the following common characteristic: Both would bear a discrete & a topologically smooth Slater euclidean metric, that is here to be homeomorphic -- but Not flat.
Let's next say, that (the secant of (e^(the Cevita-based Flow))) = 2^.5, and;
(the co-secant of (e^(the Wess-Zumino-based Flow))) = 2^.5.
As a result: ((((Integral Of (e^(the del of the Cevita-based Flow))))
= (((the inverse secant of e^((the Cevita-based Flow))) = 45 degrees.; and;
(((((Integral Of (e^(the del of the Wess-Zumino-based Flow)) ))
= (((the inverse co-secant of e^((the Wess-Zumino-based Flow))) = 45 degrees.
This would then work to make the reciprocal of the Inverse of both of the immediately prior, to be equal to (1/(2^.5)).
This eludes to the condition -- that the tense of either of such a flow as coming towards "you," would bear a tense of the cosine of 45 degrees (dot-product), or, of (1/2^.5);
And, this eludes, as well, to the condition -- that the tense of either of such a flow as going away from "you," would bear a tense of the sine of 45 degrees (cross-product), or, of (1/2^.5).
To Be Continued! Sam Roach.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)