Since our most recent (July, 2003 through April, 2004) trip to Oregon, experiential pendula have played a rather large role in our lives. We have experienced significant serendipities where pendula are involved. We take this opportunity to share one experience with you which is relevant to our work in Quantonics.

Couple of seasons ago, perhaps a couple of years ago, while we were in Oregon, we visited a used book store somewhere midcoast Oregon. We found some small paperbacks with, to us, fascinating titles. One is Itzhak Bentov's Stalking The Wild Pendulum, Dutton 1977, Bantam 1979. We are just now finding some margins for reading this little big book.

Bentov, much like Doug is self taught, except he (similar William James Sidis) was kicked out of kindergarten and we managed to suffer through our baccalaureate. Bentov's, Sidis', Renselle's, et al., sufferings at hands of classical academics share similarities which cannot be ignored. Our subjectively negational critical list here, decrying academias' anti individual social machinations, is too long and inappropriate this web page.

Bentov offers a too classical model of reality which is still and yet ~similar ours. Especially his 'life ontology' descriptions near end of his Introduction. Too, Bentov, as we observe him retrospectively via his Stalking The Wild Pendulum text, has some classical predilections of which even he is(was) unaware. One of those we wish to pursue here, not to denigrate this great man, but to demonstrate how treacherous classical thingking can be and is for its adherents and for our culture's teachings of our youth.

Let's just quantum jump right in...

"Let us analyze the motion of the pendulum. As it approaches its point of rest, it slows down more and more; eventually, it stops and starts moving in the opposite direction. The laws of classical mechanics tell us that at the point of rest the acceleration of the body is maximum; its potential energy is maximum; its velocity is zero; and the time required for changing the velocity of the pendulum is zero. If we analyze the events taking place at the zero point from the point of view of quantum mechanics, we get a different picture. Let us view the pendulum bob as a mathematical point, that is, a point that is too small to be measured (a dimensionless point) and follow its progress as it slows down. Clearly, the point will cover a smaller and smaller distance per unit time as it approaches its turning point..." Page 65 of 238 total including 'About the Author,' of Bantam's paperback 1979 ed.

This partial paragraph illustrates Bentov as a consummate classicist, even when he commences his quantum segue he retains his classical tenor and jargon. Allow us to take that paragraph, as we highlighted with an orange marker as we originally read these words in Bentov's book, and mark it up:

"Let us analyze the motion of the pendulum. As it approaches its point of rest, it slows down more and more; eventually, it stops and starts moving in the opposite direction. The laws of classical mechanics tell us that at the point of rest the acceleration of the body is maximum; its potential energy is maximum; its velocity is zero; and the time required for changing the velocity of the pendulum is zero. If we analyze the events taking place at the zero point from the point of view of quantum mechanics, we get a different picture. Let us view the pendulum bob as a mathematical point, that is, a point that is too small to be measured (a dimensionless point) and follow its progress as it slows down. Clearly, the point will cover a smaller and smaller distance per unit time as it approaches its turning point..."

There. That looks like our markups in Bentov's book.

Why did we mark some words, phrases and sentences in bold orange? They are problematic classicisms borne on Classical Thing-king Methods! AKA CTMs.

CTMs teach their adherents notions like this list we offer, that reality:

• is substantial,
• is material,
• is objective,
• is rational, and may be rationally analyzed:
  • may be measured objectively:
    • its objects may be observed unilaterally in ideal, state-ic, stopped, objective isolation,
  • will hold still, is stoppable, while we measure (a more apropos term here is strobe) it:
    • may be viewed in cinematographic, stopped, 'frames of reference,'
    • its immobile 'event frames' recur as a sequence of potentially unlimited stoppabilities,
      (readers may wish to know that this is what Zeno was talking about in his stoppability paradoxes, and what Henri Bergson meant when he labeled this kind of 'scientific' thingking, "proceeding by immobilities")
  • its objects are stable (immutable),
  • its objects are independent and dissociative (lisr: localable, isolable, separable, reducible)
  • is logical:
    • predicable, i.e., using predicate logic reality may be described as to verity and falsity using formal language and symbols representing predicable subjects and objects, (however, for some strange 'reason' unknown to classicists, sophisms do rather phenomenally appear and are usually swept under any convenient rug)
    • predictable assuming both 1-1 objective correspondence and local causality,
    • etc.
• etc. (by now we hope you are beginning to feel some 'classical' discomforts...)

Well, our bold orange highlights all tell us that Bentov was using notions similar to ones we list above to do his 'analysis.'

Those bullets describe "classically ideal" classical reality. They are flagrantly incapable of describing quantum reality!

classical line is objective, context free, cut-up-able (ana-lys-able; lys: cut; ana: up, etc.),
classical lines may be ideally equal one another: classical geometries' bogus basis;

quantum line is fuzzonic and as such is enthymemetic and absolutely comtext sensitive
in that it never loses its self~other quantum~coherent~entanglement, n¤ two quantum lines
are ever classically 'equal' one another since each 'line' is in its own evolutionary process

Doug - 8Oct2007.

How to measure reality

How to view reality

Classical simplicity is Ockhamistic minimalism. Quantum simplification, manifests itself here as aggregated superposition of phase~encodings: a fuzzon. Fuzzons do n¤t minimize to achieve quantum~simplification, rather, they aggregate...making integral holistic awareness a means to quantum~ 'simplify' "understanding." M¤ræ issi læss issi m¤ræ. Imagine a hologram. Imagine any point (fuzzon) in said hologram. What makes said hologram 'clearer,' 'simpler?' Increased EIMA with other fuzzons in said hologram! Simplicity in quantum reality requires m¤ræ nexi, n¤t fæwær. Holograms demonstrate that quantum 'axiom' ad oculos. Please grasp Doug's CeodE 2006 intuitive use of complementary_q~antinomialism_q as quanton(more,less). More nissin less! Doug had yet to understand EIMA (hologra of~) quantum~antinomialism as juxtaposed EEMD (dialecta of-) classical 'opposition' at that juncture.

For a CeodE 2011 detail comparison of quantum~simplicity (flux) vav classical~complexity (state) see Doug's What is Simple? What is Complex? Why? Explain.

Here is a depiction, artistically rendered, of a single neuron's many (a dozen; more makes complementaroception clearer, easier, simpler) phase~encodings' nexi:

(Thanks to a July 7-8, 2006 dialogue with DMD re: quantum~redemption for Doug's epiphany of a better way to describe "quantum~simplification." Thanks DMD! Muchas! Buenoisimo! Bueno issi mo' Now we understand what mojo really means. )

Quantum is better, bettership.

Classical is worse, wors[e]hip, worship.

We promised some more complex graphics...

This one shows 'planar' grouping of holographic 'sets' of 12 neurons.

In a human brain our complex sets would have to represent at least peta quantonics interrelationships, roughly 2⁵⁰ and in base 10, 10¹⁵ qubits (perhaps many more). That number grows combinatorially since all neurons potentially interrelate all neurons. Learning then is a combination of establishing more and more of those quantonic interrelationships and our brain emerscing (creatio ex nihilo aperio; see our fuzzon to fermion ontology link just above) more neurons.

This one shows 'thogonal' grouping of holographic 'sets' of 12 neurons.

Keep in mind (on your quantum~stagings) that our neurons are quantons, they are quantonic. They are n¤nmechanical! Our neurons' interrelationships include vast arrays of 'kinds' of quantum interrelationship phenomena. In that list we can include islandic cohera, islandic entropa, superposition, entanglement, interference (a huge list of kinds of interference here...), etc. In quantonics we tend to bundle all those phenomena in a few oversimplifications: absolute flux animacy, EIMAs, holographic~islandicity, adiabaticity, ubiquitous quantum sui generis (i.e., n¤ 'two' wavæ functi¤ns aræ n¤r can bæ classically 'identical'), etc. Our quantum~stages exhibit islandicity as topical quantum~coherence. When you are thinking about movies, you can recall titles and actors-actresses more easily. When you are reading about Buddhism, it tends to be more omnifficult to recall, say, movie titles.

Those bullets describe a conveniently stopped, conventionally stoppable, 'non' durational reality. Science offers spatial and temporal motion, but with a qualifier that it must be stoppable: time-stoppable motion, and space-stoppable motion. 'Period of motion,' 'stopped event,' 'period of motion,' 'stopped event,' ..., 'period of motion,' 'stopped event...' Scientists call it "real." Bergson calls it "movement by immobilities." State-ic immobilities!

But Nature never stops! If that statement is factual, in general, then does a stoppable, 'non' durational scientific convention describe reality?

Classical mechanics, quantum matrix mechanics, quantum wave mechanics, all field theories, and string theory are unreal CTMs of 'modern' sciences. They are all based upon logics which assume stoppability. They are all based upon ratiocinations which assume stoppability. All mathematics (which we know about, excepting of course our own quantonics' hermeneutics and semiotics) assume stoppability: Independence Axiom, identity, negation as objective, provisional absence of negation as proof, ratiocination, predication, etc.

Aside:

Some brave folk have attempted subjective studies of various disciplines, like probability, e.g.,

• Henry Kyburg, Jr. and Howard E. Smokler, Studies in Subjective Probability, 1964, Wiley; they reprint:
  • John Venn's very quantumesque The Subjective Side of Probability, 1888; Venn shows how reality is indeed hermeneutic without using "quantum;" he calls it "probability based upon belief;"
    Venn came very close to expressing what we call a "quantum included-middle." It is similar Pfleiderer's, what we coined "fuzzon." It is similar Gestalt's figure-ground 'join.' It is similar our own Quantonics quantum quanton(ground,figure). It is somewhat antithetic classicism's dichon(figure, ground).
  • Borel's Apropos of a Treaty on Probability 1924,
  • Frank Ramsey's Truth and Probability 1926,
  • Bruno de Finetti's Foresight, Its Logical Laws, Its Subjective Sources 1937,
  • Koopman's The Bases of Probability 1940 (note title's innate quantum heterogeneity), and
  • L. J. Savage's The Foundations of Statistics Reconsidered 1961
    Unfortunately most of these scholars use CTMs to do their work, thus putting SOM's wall twixt them and quantum reality.

They attempt subjective studies, but they fall back on maths and CTMs which are objectively non quantum-real. They commit self-disabling intellectual acts. It is part of being in SOM's loop.

End aside.

To make all this a tad simpler, let's draw our largest anti classical quantum saber: Quantum reality is unstoppable! Go ahead! Take our saber and whack bloody hell out of our first, previous, list of classical bullet bilge! Classicists have been using SOM's knife on us since at least Parmenides. Now it's our turn to cut their Babel into quantal pieces. Go ahead! Relish your power over SOMwits. Be brutal. Be savage! Ugh! Medieval, eh?

But classicists used that same blunt force trauma on more quantumesque thinkers (they maliciously called them "sophists" with full metal denigration) for over two millennia. To our understanding it ~'started' with Socrates (they meted his punishment of death by hemlock for his sophism, his: philosophy — philo (love) of sophy (sophism)), then probably Jesus (if there ever was a sophist, Jesus was), then Aquinas' despised Aristotelian "infidel" sophists, then Inquisitional Catholicism's Giordano Bruno (Clement VIII burned him at a stake), and Galileo, Huygens (wave sophism), to some extent Leibniz, probably Hume, Hamann, a Zuni Brujo, to some extent Bohr, Schrödinger (analytic quantum wave sophism), Gödel (analytic recursion, precursive kin of quantum sophism), and most recently our mentor Pirsig. (very incomplete list, lots of names missing...Prince Louis de Broglie (quantum wave sophism) appears one of few who survive unscathed, with an much admired reputation. Bohm to some extent, too.)

One more time:

"Let us analyze the motion of the pendulum. As it approaches its point of rest, it slows down more and more; eventually, it stops and starts moving in the opposite direction. The laws of classical mechanics tell us that at the point of rest the acceleration of the body is maximum; its potential energy is maximum; its velocity is zero; and the time required for changing the velocity of the pendulum is zero. If we analyze the events taking place at the zero point from the point of view of quantum mechanics, we get a different picture. Let us view the pendulum bob as a mathematical point, that is, a point that is too small to be measured (a dimensionless point) and follow its progress as it slows down. Clearly, the point will cover a smaller and smaller distance per unit time as it approaches its turning point..."

As we said, stoppability is our largest and perhaps easiest problematic to address here.

Bentov is looking at a pendulum which is apparently swinging in an ideal, self-linear arc. It covers a classically identical path each swing to and fro. To Bentov, this special pendulum case allows him to say it "stops" at each swing's extreme.

In order to say and believe that Bentov must assume that his pendulum's reference frame is motionless. Physicists would say Bentov's pendulum's reference frame has "zero momentum." But does it? Really?

No! On Earth, his reference frame is moving around Earth's axis at a maximum of 500 meters per second at Earth's equator. Too, Earth moves around its solar orbit at about 30 kilometers per second!

Like we did drawing our one meter diameter circle in our description of pi as a variable, let's do something similar with our pendulum. Put our pendulum on a train moving at say 100 kilometers per hour. Allow it to swing normal to train's direction of motion.

Now imagine a line traced out in space as our pendulum swings. Does it stop?

Can you see how classical analytics induced Bentov's zeroes and infinities? An assumption of stoppability did it!

Is classical analysis a valid tool for real quantum descriptions?

SOMites, students of academia, adherents of CTMs, and classicists, believe that reality is objective and human-sensing of objective reality makes it subjective. Dichon(subject, object). Inanimate, immutable EEMD.

MoQites, students of Quantonics, adepts of QTMs, and quantumists, believe that reality is subjective while apparitionally objective, and believe that we are in It and It is in us. Quanton(It,us). Absolutely animate, absolutely changing EIMA.

Quantum flux is crux. Classical stux sux.

Aside:

19Apr2004...

Now is there any way we can use this quantonics view of quantum reality to our advantage?

If you agree with what we have said so far, and if that is a better way of viewing quantum reality, then we can use it to our advantage.

Errol E. Harris, in his The Foundations of Metaphysics in Science offers us a fabulous example:

"With the complexities and paradoxes involved in theories of the aether we need not here trouble ourselves; that motion relative to it is systematically undetectable was finally established by Michelson, and nothing was left to which appeal could be made as an absolute criterion of position and momentum. This discovery led to Poincaré's enunciation of the Principle of Relativity, 'that a uniform translatory motion, which is possessed by a system as a whole, cannot be detected by observation of phenomena taking place wholly within that system.' In short, there is no way of determining absolute motion. Accordingly, any frame of reference moving uniformly is an inertial (or 'Galilean') frame equivalent to any other Galilean frame, and its velocity being relative to every other is no fixed quantity but depends upon the reference body with which we choose to compare it." See p. 45, which corresponds part 2 of chapter III. Ours is a 1st ed. hardbound, 1965 Humanities Press.

More later...

18May2004 more...

What happens when we 'classically analyze' libration?

Whatings happenings whenings we apply what we learned above to libration? Whereings issi quantum librationings? Whenings issi quantum librationings?

A cogent question: Is antigravity classically state-ic? Is antigravity quantum dynamic? Isn't libration animate, just as we described our Quantonics' version of a pendulum? Another bigger and better question: is libration partial quantum coherence?

So... can we use QTMs to huge advantage over CTMs? Should you still be worshiping in classicism's SOMland of stux sux?

28Jun2004 more... Notice Poincarés' statements we highlighted in bold violet and bold orange. Both are naïve-realistic classicisms. In quantum reality, local systems viewed as classical 'wholes' simply do not, nor cannot classically 'exist.' Quantum systems are not classically lisrable! Uniform translatory motion does not classically 'exist' in quantum reality. Quantum systems are absolutely animate (both macrocosmically and microcosmically), EIMA, and are heterogeneous in all quantum measures. There are always heterogeneous quantum systems whose center (Planck rate referenced) frequencies and bandwidths are omniffering one another and may be used to quantum~relatively measure motion. That relative approach works as long as we do not view reality as a monism. Classically simplified, it is what we use as our de facto measurement approach at Millennium III's commencement. (Classical science wants to be de jure, but it can only muster de facto.) Dirac has hinted that we might ponder using Planck's lambda and Planck's frequency to quantumly, only apparently, but perhaps adequately, measure ~absolute motion. But if we did that, we would be mimicking Einstein, wouldn't we! That is just what Einstein did to make his version of relativity classically objective: he imposed an anti-Leibnitzian classical notion of absolutely invariant geometrical interval! Poincarés' notion of relativity appears to assume a monism, doesn't it? His "uniform translatory motion" assumes a space-time monism doesn't it? But quantum ræhlihty issi b¤th spathiahlly amd tehmp¤rahlly heterogæne¤uhs! S¤, what ihf quantum aether issi is¤spathiahlly amd is¤tehmp¤rahlly heterogæne¤uhs? Is there any way to measure isotime classically? Our quantum~heuristihc answær issi n¤! However, there are countless ways to infer quantum aether's presence (this list is about to explode in scope and breadth based on Doug's recent, yet undocumented, breakthroughs in hologramic energy~wellings of cohera and entropa; if you have been watching our dated changes on our index page during 2008, you can see quantonics' emergence of n¤væl quantum~h¤l¤gramic energy~wellings as fuzzonic; these breakthroughs' affectings are metastatic (metastindyanic) nearly our whole website; we'll show a list of predominately affected pages after we get over this initial hump of harried and change agitating efforts. Our Quantonics Symbols page will show many new graphics which haven't ever appeared prior on our site. All pages relevant fuzzons as energy~wellings can expect some changes. All pages relevant quantum~hologramic ontologies will receive updates. All QELR pages and QELP pages will experience additional language remediationings. All waveMBUq™ pages will be affected. Actually, much of this effort has arisen from Doug's attempts to use Quantonics' Poisson Bracketings as tools for waveMBUq™ quantiques. And so on...): evolutionary creation, cyclic emergence and demergence, cyclic metabolism, i.e., æthergenera as both anabolism AKA synthesis "up" and catabolism AKA analysis "down," (See Mae-wan Ho, the Rainbow and the Worm, 'The Physics of Organisms.') æthergenera expresses itself as isofluxial mediator of all quantum~realities' actualities as quantum~philogenera, ~philohologra, and ~philoquanta, æthergenera manifests itself as holofuzzonic morphogenesis (i.e., quantum~real shaping of both quantum~coherent~bosonic thoughts and quantum~mixcoherent~fermionic materials) of all quantum~realities' fluxings, especially noticeable to humans generally as bosons and fermions and mixings of them, quantum~morphogeneses of bosons and fermions individually appear as sensory phenomena (bosons) and material phenomena (to redundantly overemphasize, quantum~phenomena are quantum~tells of æther), quantum~morphogeneses of middle~included bosons and fermions mixing appear (our best example is) as quantum~thinkqing on our quantum~stages emerscenture of novel memes and memeos, Ernst Haeckel's "Ontogeny recapitulates phylology," bosons, (especially Higgs' boson) gluons, quark TopBottomCharmStrangeUpDown ontologies (Say, "tobochastr updo.") (~from isoflux to actuality quantum~squarings quantum reality loop), and quantum demise (a kind of EIMA sorso fractal hologramic quantum~square~rootings) as quark DownUpStrangeCharmBottomTop cata~ontologies (Say, "dusky boto.") all QCD ontologies including: TBCSUD (decreasing isoenergy) is creatio ex nihilo aperio, and DUSCBT (increasing isoenergy) is creatio nihilo ex vivo aperio, where in quantum~reality nihilo represents isoflux AKA quantum~n¤nactuality, thus all QCD ontologies are EIMA ana~cata sorso fractal metacyclic on isoflux. all cohera and entropa ontologies including n¤n fermionic (n¤n posentropic) flux actual creation and discreation, photonic~electronic~protonic perpetual motion, Brownian motion, holograms: all fuzzonic hologram ontologies including, emerqancies of peaQLOs' energy~wellings, interrelationshipings mediation of all holofuzzonic energy~wellings across all quantum~wave sorso fractal fluxings of both cohera and entropa, etc. illusions, (See our stairs illusions.) reversibility, gradient adiabaticity vis-à-vis flux, (Stairway to Lossless Reality.) quantum chromodynamic transmutation, negative posentropy gradients, (See Prigogene and Stengers, Order Out of Chaos, productive posentropy) zero bosonic spins as zeroentropy, absolute 'zero' temperature as a metaphor of absolute iso~any~metric, least time~action as isoconic, isowavelength flux (isoflux) as ideally~negentropically isoadiabatic, etc. Watch for more...

More - 11-14Jul2004. In our disapproval of Bentov's classical pendulum analysis, wæ hinted at sæværal quantum mæmæs which aræ w¤rth further comsihdærati¤nings. One is that if a classical reference frame were absolutely stoppable (the idea of concrete absence of motion: ideal classical-equilibria), and if somehow we could get a pendulum to swing in a stopped reference frame, Bentov would be classically correct that rates of deceleration and acceleration near pendula swing extremes would be infinite and that a 180o change in velocity would have to occur stoppably in an infinitesimal 'distance,' and an infinitesimal 'time.' Another is that we assume our pendulum system is mostly fermionic: it has 'weight' in some gravitational comtext. Ensemble fermions, unless they are acting like bosons, are posentropic: less than 100% energy efficient in their ensemble super atomic behaviors (individual fermions are adiabatic thus live perpetually...). Were they acting as bosons, our issues of stoppability would take on a different hue: stoppability would not produce those infinities and forces, would they? And bosons are 100% energy efficient (apparently ideal adiabaticity) in their behaviors. Photons are, for example, PMMs! Atoms, their nuclei, and electrons are individually perpetual fermions and as individual atomic systems adiabatic. See Doug's detail on fermions in November, 2007 TQS News. However, from a quantum perspective, reference frames are not classically stoppable, are they (i.e., ideal classical-equilibria may n¤t be established-produced-maintained)? (Æther AKA QVF motion is, Quantonics believes measurably, absolute; æther is absolutely energetic! (therefore classical ideas of equilibrium per se are bogus, retarded, tiny minded, etc.)) Ihn quantum ræhlihty, wæ d¤ n¤t sææ (e.g., diræctly epæriænce) any classical infinities and classical stoppabilities (ideal classical-equilibria) at any pendulum's swing extrema, d¤ wæ? See Doug's recent, CeodE 2012, quantum~breakthrough on instability, partial~absence of equilibria and partial~presence of chaos, i.e., instabilityings as requisites of quantum~measurement. Bottom line there is Bergson's declaration, paraphrased, "...equilibria [inertia vis-à-vis spontaneity] measure naught." Doug phasements that as equilibria nissin chaos. See Bergson's Time and Free Will, Topic 29, p. 141. Also see Doug's pendulum relevant commentary in Bergson's TaFW, Topic 21, p. 107. What does absence of those infinities quantum~measure? Absolute motion! Abs¤lutæ moti¤n n¤t of said pendulum's 'reference frame' itself!1 However, Errol Harris just said above, "...Poincaré's enunciation of the Principle of Relativity, 'that a uniform translatory motion, which is possessed by a system as a whole, cannot be detected by observation of phenomena taking place wholly within that system.' In short, there is no way of determining absolute motion." But we have just shown you that there is a way: by quantum ¤mniht¤rings h¤w far ræm¤ved, duæ ¤ur quantum abs¤lutæ moti¤n, from a classically ideal stopped [ideal classical, state-inertial equilibrium] theoretical reference frame wæ aræ! Doug's measurement breakthrough omnistills this as "...chaos measures, thus masters, equilibria." Implication? Quantonics HotMeme™ "Quantum~change masters reality!"™ Quantonics HotMeme™. What Harris should have concluded Poincaré should have said is, "In short, there is no ideal classical stoppability." But if reality were stopped, and if we could do our pendulum analysis classically at a theoretical absolute zero momentum, then we could determine what those acceleration and deceleration values could be. But we cannot stop reality, so we must theoretically approximate those quantum~unreal scalars. Knowing those, we can assess qualitatively our ensemble quantum~real absolute motionings. Now it gets even more interesting. Whatings happenings whenings we subtractq Earth's axial rotation, Earth's orbital motion (countless ephemera involved here), and our Solar system's Milky Way orbital motion (again, ephemera)? What other cosmic motions do we need to subtractq? Can we arrive at a zeroq Fourier omnisintegration? Has Doug left out any other memeotics...? (What about classicists' assumptions of 3D and 1T? Time as a space proxy? Motion as a 4D space-time model? Time as relativistically stoppable at light speed? Classical uni-time vis-à-vis quantum hetero~timings? Quantum timings as non spatial?) Watch for more... Note 1 - Ponder how this comparison of "quantum attenuation of G force" and "quantum absolute non stoppability" vis-à-vis ideal maximums of N·G and instantaneous stoppability is a very useful way to leverage quantum~incorrect classical notions. Other exemplars are Einstein's stoppability of time at light speed while Planck's clock keeps ticking, and Dirac's zeroing of h-barq to classically stop quantum reality's absolute semper fluxio. If we know maximum G force in an ideal classical frame, and if we can measure quantum real attenuated Gq force in an animate frame, we have some measure of absolute motion. Also ponder how it appears that for a pendulum to swing, we need some gravitation to do our measurement. Is there a way to do this in zeroq gravity? Doug.

More - 17-22May2006. How useful is what we just described? Very! Classical navigation in omnispatial, omnitemporal quantum reality will be omnifficult using classical means. Have you ever thought about omnifficulties of traveling to Alpha Centauri and then returning to Earth? Neither AC, nor Earth are standing still. Their motions are absolute and unstoppable. When we 'travel' in real space...omnimensional spacings and timings...our classical analytics fail massively. But fermions are pendula and pendula measure absolute motion! So what can we do with fermions? We can use them to monitor omnimensional changes in any motion quantum~relative to absolute motion! What does that mean? Something huge in Value and opportunity! We have a means of navigating which is similar old fashioned dead reckoning! But it's quantum! It's awesome in its simplicity once we accept all that Doug has written above. We've only just begun our efforts here, but we want to give you a heads up for more Quantonics' breakthroughs... (We'll keep expanding this green text box for awhile...)

End aside.

Thank you for reading,

Doug.
30-31Aug2003