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: timestoppable
motion, and spacestoppable 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." Stateic
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
includedmiddle." It is similar Pfleiderer's, what we coined
"fuzzon." It is similar Gestalt's figureground '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 quantumreal.
They commit selfdisabling 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, selflinear 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 humansensing 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 stateic?
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 naïverealistic 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 antiLeibnitzian 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 spacetime 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 _{wave}MBU_{q}™
pages will be affected. Actually, much of this effort has arisen
from Doug's attempts to use Quantonics'
Poisson Bracketings as tools for _{wave}MBU_{q}™
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 Maewan 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~think_{q}ing
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 visàvis 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  1114Jul2004.
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 classicalequilibria), 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 180^{o} 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 classicalequilibria may n¤t be
establishedproducedmaintained)? (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 classicalequilibria)
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
visàvis 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, stateinertial 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 subtract_{q} 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 subtract_{q}? Can we arrive at
a zero_{q} 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 spacetime model? Time as relativistically stoppable
at light speed? Classical unitime visàvis 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" visàvis 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 hbar_{q} 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 G_{q} 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 zero_{q} gravity? Doug.

More  1722May2006.
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.
3031Aug2003
