Pendulums, circles, waves, vortices, electrons, ellipses, spirals… What kind of “clock” could be built with all this? Or better yet, what kind of “time” would it be measuring, counting, calculating? Furthermore, would it be calculating it, or rather indicating it?
To speak of the third principle of dynamics is to speak of the very concept of reciprocity —within closed systems. The reciprocity of relativistic reference frames is purely mathematical, since it is not bound to centers of mass —but the same applies to forces in ellipses according to Newton.
Relativistic simultaneity, even the local determinism of quantum mechanics, is embedded in the basic Newtonian assumption of the global synchronizer, the absolute time in which the third principle does not take place sequentially but simultaneously. But the same vortex of Newton’s bucket experiment, as Pinheiro notes, denies this absolute time in the most convincing and categorical way —and not only for instinct, which is always stronger than metaphysics. The thermomechanical reading allows us to obtain more information, as well as another type of indication. And that same vortex is already a completely different model of clock, that we should learn to contemplate —if to contemplate something, in this our artificial world, we have to start by being able to somehow reproduce it.
We agree here with Pinheiro and other authors . Various arguments and numerical calculations indicate that the third principle is not applicable to systems out of equilibrium; and if it is applicable, it can only be so in the sense of the retarded potentials. That is, we assume that even celestial orbits are always out of equilibrium and only reach it instantly thanks to an additional term representing the action of the medium on matter; this term can be entropic, or respond to a longitudinal vibration, or a constant bombardment of external particles.
In quantum mechanics, which is supposed to be the fundamental theory, forces become secondary to the potential; however, we continue to understand everything according to the logic of the three principles, even after the relativistic generalization of the principle of equivalence.
But the decisive turn had already taken place when the potential went from representing a mere position to having an irreducible temporal component. For Weber’s relational dynamics that emerged halfway between Newtonian and 20th century physics, it does not make sense to separate the dynamic component of the state of the system, nor the forces of the environment in which they occur. The rigorous application of the principle of dynamic equilibrium also made this distinction irrelevant, as it made irrelevant the equivalence principle, since inertia itself is dispensable.
If, by virtue of the principle of dynamic equilibrium, we dispense with the concept of inertia, we also dispense with the intentionality —the dispositio underlying mechanics. The Global Synchronizer, so perfectly intangible, is the supreme symbol of power in the present civilizing cycle. It is intangible as it is metaphysical, but it suppresses or in any case makes unrecognizable the local exchange of information of the open systems and the interaction with the environment.
It has been said that after Newton the universe went from breathing like a mother to ticking like a clock; there is still time to bring it back to breath again.