PHASE MEMORY, PARALLEL TRANSPORT AND FRAME OF REFERENCE
Theoretical physicist Nicolae Mazilu observed at the time that if astrology remains a blemished subject, it is because it has failed to correctly address the question of the reference frame and its proper transformations. Indeed, a person who was born on a specific date and time in a certain place continues to maintain the “inner clock” of his birth even if he moves to the most remote place on the globe. And on the other hand, for all those who are not familiar with the astrology complexities, it may seem absurd that the same planets, which in real time are in the same positions in the sky for everyone at the same location, can influence each person in a completely different manner, because each person is an ongoing peculiar microcosm.
Astrology is only one more of the symbolic systems expressing the universal interdependence, but it is the most directly linked to the birth of modern physics, with which it has almost nothing to do. This contrast and this proximity has created feelings of mutual grievance. Emilio Saura and Raymond Abellio have drawn a distinction between three levels of astrology: an influential or primary astrology that tries to relate celestial configurations and terrestrial “facts”, a symbolic astrology that attends more to propensities and resonances, and finally an astrology oriented towards the absolute that seeks to subsume the apparent multiplicity in the consciousness of the “transcendental I”.
I will not pretend to do justice to such a vast and uncertain knowledge in such a brief space. I do want to underline the fact that, although physical astronomy and astrology today have diametrically opposite aims that can in no way coincide, they must inevitably have a common ground that have not yet been properly explored by either side.
All physics is built around the general concept of reference frame. A reference frame combines in one two primary elements: the clock and the coordinate system. The clock that regularizes our perception of a physical body in motion, and the coordinate system, which does it with many bodies. But astrology is no different in this either, only that, instead of orienting its whole apparatus towards quantitative prediction, it takes it towards interpretation, and in the very place of the reference frame places the very self, whether the empirical self concerned with the affairs of the world or the transcendental self which is the condition of possibility of experience.
Thus in physics, as a third-person objective science, description and interpretation of processes are relegated to the background in favor of prediction, while astrology, as a subjective knowledge that puts the first person at the center, only prioritizes prediction when it becomes a degraded practice, whereas interpretation should always be its genuine focus. Astronomy sees objects outside and deals with motions of matter and forces, astrology deals with cycles, potentials and even potencies, and tries to finally see the world as the environment of the self.
Astronomy should be concerned with analysis, although overstating the role of prediction has prevented even a complete analysis of such basic matters as the Kepler problem, whereas the touchstone of astrology is the overall composition of a whole and its synthetic perception and judgment, much more akin to the composition and perception of an art creation.
This diametrical difference should suffice for demarcation. However, the I that projects itself onto the world does not want to even contemplate the idea that the world also projects onto the I and affects it. We prefer to think that Nature is always out there, even if it is in the form of genes and molecules, as long as we can manipulate it; but if there is a possibility that Nature acts upon us in ways we cannot control, we choose to ignore it, since it calls into question our standing in the wordl. Moreover, the monster of the social is extremely jealous and rejects the mere idea that its very parts and aggregates may have something to do with things off limits.
When physics speaks of forces, it refers above all to controllable forces, since there are also measurable but not controllable forces, as it is shown by something as empirical as the constitutive law in materials science. Those force that are not controllable are, in any case, interpreted in terms of the controllable ones, and so, for example, we apply Newton’s three laws of motion to celestial bodies even though, for example, the third principle is not verifiable in an orbit since the force vector points to an empty place, and not to the body of the Sun. This plain fact had to be most embarrassing to Newton himself, but in time people managed to forget it.
A controllable force is a projected force, but not an uncontrolled force. The hole in Newtonian theory was then plugged by Lagrangian mechanics resorting to potentials, and these potentials were thought to be only an auxiliary tool to the full description of forces which remain uncontrollable, but are assumed to be of the same type as the controllable ones. Newton’s theory, reasoned Gauss and Weber between 1830 and 1846, amounts to a gravitostatics, not to a gravitodynamics, and it could be that forces, beginning with the electrodynamics then at hand, depended not only on distances, but also on relative velocities and accelerations. This hypothesis also implied a phenomenon known as “retarded potential”.
Weber’s theory was replaced by Maxwell’s, but much later, its heir, quantum mechanics, began to discover, to the general bewilderment of physicists, that quantum potentials were more than a mathematical tool at the service of force. The Aharonov-Bohm effect certified that an electron feels the presence of a magnetic field even when the field strength at its position is zero. Then Berry, in 1983, generalized this type of phenomena to adiabatic processes without heat exchange, and in a few years it was further generalized to all kinds of physical conditions.
The phenomenon in question, known today as “geometric phase”, was first detected by Pancharatnam in 1956 in optical interference experiments. Regarding this totally universal phenomenon of the geometric phase, most physicists still circulate two false assertions: that it is exclusive to quantum mechanics, and that it in no way affects the completeness and accuracy of quantum mechanics.
But the fact is that the geometric phase can occur at any scale and is detected in macroscopic electrical experiments as well known as Faraday’s induction, in the precession of Foucault’s pendulum or even on the surface of water. And on the other hand, its description requires the addition of a bundle over the Hilbert projective space in which quantum mechanics is formalized, which implies that it cannot be traced back to the Hamiltonian dynamics that defines conservative or closed systems. Then, something was clearly missing in quantum mechanics, and the best proof of it was the widespread confusion of physicists for decades, until Berry “formalized” the embarrassing situation.
David Bohm himself, who spoke so eloquently of the implicate order, did not seem to have fully grasped the universality of the so-called geometric phase; but the situation is not different now, when this factor routinely enters into the calculations of engineers striving to achieve “quantum computation” or to manipulate atoms at the individual level.
The geometric phase, “global change without local change”, is also known as phase memory, since it implies the subjection or “enslavement” of the system to certain additional parameters; consequently it is studied in robotics and control theory, and has also been observed in dissipative systems and in animal locomotion, for example in the righting reflex of falling cats or the undulating advance of snakes.
The interpretation of this totally universal phenomenon is still completely open, although almost all physicists prefer to ignore the question. To deal with systems as having a dynamical and a geometrical phase is just a compromise, but, in any case, of what kind of geometry are we talking about? The answer here is clear: it is the geometry of the environment through which the parallel transport is measured. That is, it is an indirect measure of the environment itself, of how the system is not perfectly and ideally closed as mechanics by pure principle pretends.
There is also an extremely elegant mathematical language to describe these parallel transport phenomena: the differential geometry developed by Cartan, in addition to the also very compact geometric algebra initiated by Grassman and promoted in more recent times by Hestenes. Unfortunately, none of these formalisms has much favor among physicists, who, still by inertia, continue to cling to the vector formulation, a poorer and flatter description that often involves less information.
Speaking of information, which as we have already said is usually clipped out by vector formalisms, the geometric phase is often explained as a pure and immaterial transmission of information without any relation to the dynamics. On the one hand we would have “blind forces”, and on the other hand, “pure information” supported by nothing; it certainly does not seem a coherent or credible picture, but after all the problem of “communication” has been there forever: no one has ever said how the Moon knows where the Sun is and what mass it has to move as it moves.
Celestial mechanics, in short, still has huge holes, that general relativity, which does little more than complicate the equations, is in no way able to fill. Not to mention Laplace’s perturbation theory and its “resonances”, which, apart from the fact that we are never told how they are physically possible, force us to believe that gravity can also have a repulsive effect, not a negligible feat.
The geometric phase simply shows us the physical reality of potentials, even if we do not know how to explain their action, and their ties with “controllable” forces, with justified quotation marks because no one has so far controlled gravity. And if astrology is completely unable to justify any kind of planetary influence in terms of force, in terms of potentials and their phase shifts celestial mechanics is in no better situation.
As we say, the purely relational approach to dynamics proposed by Gauss and Weber, which at least put forces and potentials on an identical basis, was more logical. This was the true theory of relativity, way earlier and with fewer postulates and complications, not to mention unnecessary curved spacetimes. But relational dynamics did not even need the principle of inertia and all the scholastic distinctions of inertial frames of reference.
Newton’s mechanics is summed up in the phrase “nothing moves unless moved by something else”, but with the principle of dynamic equilibrium, which replaces the principle of inertia, nothing needs to be moved by anything, but any state of motion or rest of a body is already the result of the sum of all the forces of the universe on it. Thus, the principle of dynamic equilibrium, key to relational mechanics, is in perfect harmony and consonance with the principle of universal interdependence, and one could even say it is just another way of expressing it.
Moreover, the principle of dynamic equilibrium, while remaining neutral, allows to think that the body itself determines its own motion, as Alejandro Torassa shows, without breaking in the least with interdependence, and without losing power of prediction. So, there is really no need for new theories or new postulates or new particles, but only a new way of looking at the Principle and the principles.
This does not mean that a good principle explains causes or influences, but something surely more important, that it ceases to make them necessary. If even the fundamental physical laws are supported by variational principles, and the Lagrangian that supports them is but an exact analogy that can respond to an infinity of different causal explanations, astrology could never claim to go beyond statistical correlations.
It is also true that even in the field of statistics, physics only see what it wants to see. For example, Simon Shnoll and his school has demonstrated for many decades “the occurrence of discrete states during fluctuations in macroscopic processes” of the most varied type, from enzymatic and biological reactions to radioactive decay, with periods of 24 hours, 27 and 365 days, which obviously respond to a most familiar “astronomical and cosmophysical pattern”.
So even radioactive decay is not totally random, as it usually claimed, but such regularities are routinely filtered out and discounted as “non-relevant”. On the other hand the so-called “Copenhagen interpretation” of quantum mechanics is still promoted precisely because it is supposed to contain the minimum dose of interpretation, but even that is not true, since according to Copenhagen the wave function responds to an individual system, which is still an unnecessary ontological fabrication, and it would be much more logical to think that it only applies to a statistical ensemble, and that its waves are waves in the coordinate space. This would greatly facilitate the connection with macroscopic classical mechanics and with the arguments of a global nature that make the geometric phase possible.
Such elementary considerations would make the inclusion of cosmophysical factors much simpler, but the experimental evidence for such correlations can only grow consistent very slowly, on a scale of generations and centuries, and on the other hand the demanding autophagy of the Social does not want strangers sitting at its table. Of course astrology has accumulated its own kind of evidence over millennia, but it is not the kind of evidence that modern science is willing to consider.
It is clear that one can legitimately present astrology by elegant projective arguments and global correlation without entering into the question of physical causation, but this is not tantamount to denying its possibility. The physical influence of the Moon, for example, is certainly not difficult to conceive, nor, for many, to feel, but if so many of “the learned” deny even the possibility of such an influence it is also a matter of feeling, albeit in the opposite sense: the I of many feels stronger if it imagines itself autonomous. Of course, it is only society that inculcates such ideas of “independence”; a society that tries to convince us that intelligence is synonymous with dullness, instead of sensibility.
Much more evident is the influence of the Sun. In general, it has been astrologers and cycle researchers who have pointed to the powerful influence of the great planets, Saturn and Jupiter, and especially the latter, on the sunspot cycle and the magnetic activity of our star, so critical to the balance of life on Earth. Apart from the fact that the solar period and that of Jupiter are almost equal, 11 and 11.86 years, there is also a plain astrophysical reason: the Sun’s contribution to the total angular momentum of its system is estimated at 0.3%, while Jupiter alone has more than 60%. The other planets would explain the small difference in the cycle. One can also find more specific reasons outside the mainstream theories but we will not go into them now.
And here again we see the overdetermination of the social that wants to refer everything to itself: the media campaign relentlessly to convince us of a climate change of which we have only vague and debatable statistical correlations, while systematically ignoring the absolute basis on which the climate depends, the radiation from the Sun and its well-known variations. But it is clear that trying to convince us of the decisiveness of the “anthropogenic factor” is way better game for the powerful.
Most of the “refutations” of astrology are of such a low level that they deserve no comment. On the other hand, every interpretation has its share of speculation and even of folly, and physics is no stranger to this; perhaps that is why it has tried to reduce its interpretations to a minimum or even to dispense with them, which in practice, besides being absurd, is simply impossible. Every experimental or technical application already starts from an interpretation. In astrology, on the other hand, the interpretation itself is already the application, so it cannot be dispensed with either in theory or practice.
The very idea that fundamental physics is made up of “local theories” is pure interpretation, and not in accordance with reality. The Lagrangian of a system is by definition global; a very different thing is that it is systematically used to obtain derivatives —local answers. The same thing happened with Newton’s “explanation” of the ellipse; because Kepler problem already contains in itself the whole business of gauge fields, based on the invariance of the Lagrangian. So the “local theories” are already pure interpretation —only in the service of prediction. And the proof is that physical causality, which is what a local theory worthy of the name should really aim at, can never be clarified and it is really out of question.
In physics, then, the local is also the result of the global, even if one is not willing to aknowledge it. Only a few old-fashioned and honest physicists, like Planck, wonder why all fundamental laws depend on action principles, which are global and teleological by its very definition. The assimilation of entropy with disorder, perpetrated by Boltzmann, is another example of an all-too-human interpretation that has nevertheless been passed down for generations as a model of positivist neutrality.
Clausius’ original principle of maximum entropy already assumes a tendency towards order, for as Swenson said, “the world is in the order production business, including the production of living things and their capacity for perception and action, for order produces entropy faster than disorder”. But furthermore, the diverse Lagrangians of fundamental physics can be reformulated as a balance between minimum change of energy and maximum entropy production, so that we get a totally different picture of mechanics, dynamics and finality.
Any interpretation is partial, but pretending that we do not interpret because we give the last word to the quantitative prediction is worse and even more false. The worst thing that can happen is that scientists and technicians manipulate things without even asking themselves what they are manipulating, but that is exactly what this system expects of them, and they have internalized it to the marrow of their bones. The rest of us are also expected to follow them.
There is nothing more mundane or profane than reading the newspaper in the morning: a whole selection of news calculated to check thoroughly your springs. And in spite of its never sufficiently pondered foolishness, one cannot help but react to these news with the same reflexes every day, with only slight variations. The same thing happens during the course of the day, and even in dreams, since the shadows of our planets only stop being projected when the light of consciousness definitively vanishes and we reach the depths of slumber.
In details such as our chronic reactions to the news it is clear that “the stars” are not so much influences as impulses that come from within; there is nothing extraordinary in that these impulses require external stimuli to come to life, that they take the form of reactions. “The stuff of which dreams are made” is the “astral substance,” which is but a “tonal or chromatic dimension” of the homogeneous continuum from which we have emerged and in which we still find ourselves. There are astral tonalities just as there are the timbres of the different metals when we twang them. These tonalities, which have many different nuances in each individual, envelop us in concentric layers, like a certain music of the spheres, which an astrology that aspires to be more or less “scientific” would have to recompose.
Astrology undoubtedly has an invariant structure that cannot change over the ages, since it simply connects events in space and time by means of a certain projection. In this sense it is much less fickle than other disciplines that claim to be sciences, such as psychology, economics or sociology, although undoubtedly the almost infinite “plasticity” of these matters gives them a great advantage in adapting to the needs of power. Were it not for the fact that economics deals with the accountable data par excellence, money, and ends up reducing everything to the same quantitative standard, no one would even dream of calling it a science; but at any rate, dealing only with quantities is not something that other fields of knowledge have to envy.
Astrology, on the other hand, was always aware of its great affinity with sociology and psychology, long before these ones acquired scientific pretensions; but its presuppositions transcend completely the reductive and confined vision of such specialties. What is not forgiven is that she has a transparent and first-rate quantitative part, unlike the heuristic and often spurious mathematics of these successful new riches.
The art of Urania could adapt to these times, but that is not a great prospect. If she cares about science, it is not to receive its legitimacy from anyone, but because of her desire to fit some of the most important loose pieces together, out of pure inner aspiration for unity.
The ellipses discovered by Kepler can be interpreted, following Weber and Nikolay Noskov, via the retarded potential and a phase velocity that produces a wave or vibration in the moving bodies—which amount to a direct interpretation of the geometric phase. Let us recall that Weber mechanics gives good predictions but it does not allow us to distinguish between the kinetic, potential and internal energy of the bodies —an ambiguity one should find natural, indeed, given that energy is just a human account balance.
Just think about it for a moment. The Kepler problem is not just a matter of celestial mechanics, it is at the basis of quantum mechanics and the atom too. The same Schrödinger equation has a term corresponding to a wave in the body, only that quantum mechanics, because of the limitations of special relativity, is unable to describe extended particles (ephemeral configurations) with volume. Weber’s electrodynamics has no such limitations. But it is not only Schrödinger, the electromagnetic waves with which Hertz seemed to confirm Maxwell’s theory, are not transverse in a geometric sense, but only as mere statistical average between empty space and matter.
We can then see matter, when it leaves room for real bodies, —something that does not happen in the standard version of quantum mechanics-, as a diffuse or statistical cloud traversed by different tones (the inner phase), which are already included within the probabilistic picture of standard quantum mechanics. There are certain propensities within the “probability clouds”, which would have a layered structure like the atoms themselves —which would explain the discrete states faithfully attested by the Shnoll school for more than forty years. I find this interpretation natural, and it is easy to integrate within the great mass of experimental evidence, even though this is never indifferent to the theoretical framework that contains it.
Paracelsus said that without the astral impression man is not even able to mend his pants. This impressio is the propensity or disposition that inclines us to do certain things rather than others on our own initiative and even without external coercion. The great Swiss physician and traveler obviously knew what he was talking about, and had probed human nature and Big Nature with much more direct means than our current bureaucratic science, which adjusts its glasses so as not to see what may be on the sides.
The most important aspects of astrology are more of a symbolic than a physical order, and yet that symbolism fits perfectly within the spatial and cyclical determinations of the motion of our planet within its astronomical environment. It is ultimately a qualification of the three axes of space and its six directions, the simplest scheme for our physical and intellectual perception, which Abellio, trying to grant it the highest degree of gnoseological dignity, called “the absolute structure”.
Abellio also proposed a quaternary model of perception and knowledge, in which the mere relation between the object and the sense organ is always only a part of a larger proportion —a relation of relations—, since the object presupposes the world and the sensation of the organ, a complete body that organizes it and gives it a definite sense:
The most important aspect of this exacting proportion (object/world=sense/body) is the ignored but ever-present continuity between the extremes “world” and “body”, where the world is not a sum of objects, nor the body of organs, parts or entities. In short, the primitive homogeneous medium of reference to which the so-called “fundamental forces” must necessarily be connected, since we already know beforehand that any movement or change of density is just a manifestation of the principle of dynamic equilibrium, either as a sum or as a product.
The body from within is the seat of sensation, the undifferentiated common sensorium from which the different organs have emerged, and without which there would be neither subject nor “common sense.” In harmony with this, we can speak of two modes of intelligence, one which seems in motion and pursuing its object, and an immobile one which allows us to listen to our own mentations, and without which they could not exist. Let us try to think without listening to ourselves, and we shall see that this is impossible: the very compulsion to think is nothing but the desire to listen to oneself.
The relation of the motions of the body with respect to its isometric center of gravity as origin of coordinates is similar to the movements of the object-oriented intelligence with respect to the immutable intelligence. Certainly the “space of the mind” does not seem extensive at all, but to verify its intimate connection with the physical it is enough to put into practice any of those isometric exercises in which one remains standing and hollows out simply to perceive the balance in the micro-movements necessary to maintain the posture. If the intimate is the compenetration of the internal and the external, we have here both a physical exercise and an exercise for the intelligence, which allows us to verify the intimate, transcendental relationship between movement and immobility.
As for all the nonsense that says that astrology is contrary to free will, it should suffice with Schopenhauer’s well-known phrase: “A man can do what he wills, but he cannot will what he wills“. Astrology does not deny the deepest freedom, the only truly transcendental one, which can only take place beyond passions and inclinations. In practice, very few reach this place, or do so to very modest degrees. That is to say, as we all know, in practice we follow closely the grooves carved by inclinations and habits.
In other times the passions of human beings had much deeper roots, but great efforts were also made to overcome them. In modern urbanites everything is incomparably more superficial, so much so that people no longer believes that there is anything to overcome. Plants adapt to the qualities of the soil, but they depend first and foremost on their own seed. There are changes in vigor or intensity, but not in the nature of the motives.
Perhaps, after all, it will not take centuries to sort out and consolidate a “statistical evidence” of the astral influence on, for example, meteorology. In my land people still spoke of el astro to refer to the momentary disposition of the weather, what we now call in a completely empty and abstract fashion el tiempo (as in Spanish the weather is “the time”). Astrometeorology was held in regard for nearly two millennia, and still receives credit in countries like India, whose crops depend to such an extent on generous and timely rainfall.
Kepler himself argued for planetary influence on climate in quite a punctual manner that should be easy to confirm or refute: the Sun’s conjunction with Saturn would produce temperature drops, and so on. Since these kind of events occur every year, albeit in highly variable circumstances, there is a statistical basis with a much cleaner and defined structure than in many modern applications of data mining and analysis: these indeed are the truly neo-Babylonian practices, in the most familiar sense of the term.
But we all know to what extent statistics are open to debate and manipulation. The data of the Shnoll school, although abundant and solid, have never been taken into account in physics or biology, and we do not envision the heirs of Bohr saying that certain peaks of radioactive disintegration may have been due to a transit of Uranus —but we don’t need it either. The same is true of meteorology, which already has its own closed shop of principles, methods and problems.
Cornille, Naudin, and others have developed simple “aether drift sensors” relevant to space weather by simply rectifying the Trouton-Noble’s 1903 experiment. Here we have no reservations with these words, provided one has a correct take on the constitutive side of Maxwell’s ether problem and its relation to Weber’s electrodynamics. Seasonal variations can be measured as with the famous Miller experiment, and if the right kind of test were pursued, we might detect even the equilibrium and reversal points at the solstices and equinoxes. This is a necessary key, as Nature plays for seasons, not for eternities.
We try to optimize what we choose to measure, which is why econometrics and sociometrics are such useful tools for power. Astrology is transversal to these interests, although not completely, since there is nothing that sooner or later, if it reaches some relevance, cannot be instrumentalized. In any case, astrology, unlike many other branches of statistics, has a solid natural reference and an invariant structure, which gives it a great advantage in the long run in the race of generalized statistical inference that we are witnessing with the new machine learning algorithms.
Said another way, in this New Statistical Babylon the old Babylon could still have plenty of room to grow, but that would only represent the umpteenth denaturalization of a knowledge that should be committed first and foremost to qualities.
Newton had no particular interest in astrology, as it is sometimes said without basis, although it is true that he studied thoroughly something way more obscure and confusing in his texts as it is alchemy. There has also been a tendency to interpret universal gravitation as a revamped mathematical version of the principle of universal interdependence, but this could not be more superficial and misleading. Newton certainly reverses the question, which is characteristic of all his researches, but this reversal, far from reintegrating man into the cosmos, isolates him on one of its planes, which can nevertheless expand without apparent limit.
For the universe as a great clockwork as seen in Leibniz and Newton —the two founders of calculus- is certainly different from the great animal of the Platonic Timaeus or the organic cosmos of Plotinus. Newton’s universal gravity is supposed to operate between closed systems, since the Third Principle introduced by the English physicist intends to define precisely a closed system — even if in Kepler’s problem such a principle is impossible to assess. Moreover, according to absolute space and time, action and reaction always take place simultaneously, which tacitly assumes a Global Synchronizer, something that is otherwise also implicit in special and general relativity even if the application of the Third Principle is hardly scrutinized there.
The traditional idea of interdependence, which was certainly never made explicit because it was taken for granted and because the concept of a “universal mechanics” had not even been raised, the idea, in short, of the great organic animal or cosmos, assumed on the contrary that there are no closed systems in Nature; and since no such thing as a “Global Synchronizer” or Great Clockmaker was conceived, it assumed, by default, that each thing had its own internal organizing principle, which by now we would define as “its own inner clock.” Leibniz’s monads themselves would not have been far from such a notion had not been defined as “windowless mirrors “.
The difference is that Leibniz’s monad is an overtly metaphysical notion, while Newton’s global synchronizer, no less metaphysical, has become the tacit assumption of all modern physics. Even the probabilistic quantum mechanics is embedded within it. It is yet another exponent of the inadvertent Newtonian inversion.
Therefore both types of universality must be perceived, with the most profound but unnoticed reason, as incompatible. It is clear that the universal interdependence before Newton did not allude to anything mechanical, but to a resonance or parallelism; only we never quite assume that universal gravitation cannot be mechanical either, at least in the usual sense we give to the three principles and the central forces.
One could speak of a field theory of absolute parallelism or teleparallelism, not in the sense that Cartan gave to his differential geometry to accommodate general relativity —and which on the other hand has evolved a lot since then- but closer to the parallel transport in the ambient geometry of the geometric phase. This phase or retarded potential is giving us just the “inner time” , and maybe even the inner mood, that is truly the soul of the animal in the macrocosm and microcosm.
In Newtonian mechanics time and distance are functionally identical. But, on the other hand, in the same Newton’s equations the mass of a particle like the proton can be written as the acceleration of its radius, according to which mass and gravity are also functionally the same. What does this mean?
Everything suggests that the ground of truth of this theory is purely relational —like the geometric phase itself- rather than mechanical, and that the confusion stems from the unsound assumption that the three principles of mechanics apply identically in our machines and in the fundamental, natural forces. In addition, it is admitted that the real boundary of fields is the conservation of momentum, not the third principle.
This extended conservation principle probably also governs such fundamental organic functions as the blood circulation regulated by the heart and breath and the bilateral respiratory cycle —assuming that their retarded potentials amounts to a geometrical phase. Certainly, this does bring us much closer to the ancient view of the physiology of the cosmos as a great animal, having incorporated only the better part of the modern “geometric spirit” —that which seeks the geometry in the physical problem, rather than reducing the geometry to the reverse engineering of calculus.
Newton’s apple would owe its lustre to absolute parallelism, but if this does not seem to have a place in our physical world, it is because we have not given room for bodies either by excluding the possibility of extended, non-ideal particles. Gravity would be nothing other than the weight of absolute parallelism and its flow within bodies, a flow that our theories exclude and block, and which may ultimately be modulated by the body’s own self-gravity.
Why? Simply because, unlike Weber’s dynamics, all field theories coming from Maxwell, being defined in terms of the particle-field relation, cannot fulfill the third principle directly, and require self-interaction. Noskov’s internal longitudinal wave, analogous to the “trembling motion” or zitterbewegung of quantum mechanics, would be the self-interaction from within the body of an extended particle. Everyone knows that the drop melts into the Ocean, but few want to know how the Ocean melts into the drop.
The origin of coordinates of a reference frame, as Patrick Cornille demands, should always be located at the center of mass of a particle and has its value. Otherwise the criterion is not physical, but merely mathematical, and yet this is common in modern physics. On the other hand a center of mass is not a purely geometrical question, and if it involves density changes it can also involve a scale transition. Much of physics is based on scale transitions in both time and space, and yet no general principle of transformation is envisaged. In astrology this should be of paramount importance.
Tone is the fundamental question connecting physics and astrology, but we do not see how that common ground can be presented in any other way than with Noskov’s longitudinal vibrations internal to the moving bodies. His interpretation of the retarded potential, which is also a physical interpretation of the geometric phase without the need to propose a trivial causality, was simply a way of giving content to the conservation of energy which is merely formal not only in Weber but also in the other mechanics now in use.
Noskov further insisted that these vibrations are present in all kinds of natural phenomena, from the stability of atoms and their nuclei, to orbital elliptical motion, sound, light, electromagnetism, the flow of water or gusts of wind: the living actualization of pneuma, the vehicle of logos in Stoic cosmology. Given the fundamental ambiguity of energy in Weber, it would be appropriate to undertake a careful dimensional analysis of the values of mass and the threefold manifestation of energy in relational mechanics and its implications, which could lead to a number of surprising interpretations and conclusions at the very core of physics.
Nikolay Noskov, The phenomenon of retarded potentials