and THE UNIFIED THEORY

of

WILSON OGG

Encompassing Consciousness and Matter

The Two-Way

Biographical Data

Enfolding Force and Form

DIFFERENTIATING FORCE AND MOTION

Force and Velocity Distinguished

Force is not motion and does not have velocity. However, the enfolding oi force with form may give rise to motion or velocity. After the enfolding of motion and force in synclinal folds, leading to the formation of the hydrogen molecule, motion becomes manifested in our enfolding universe.

Velocity and Acceleration Distinguished

After synclinal folds give rise to motion or velocity, matter that results from these synclinal folds may be acted upon by forces, resulting in acceleration which is not velocity but a result of forces imparted to a particular manifestation of the universe. Acceleration is not, it must be stressed, a force but a product of forces. Thus, when forces are enfolded with form, the result are synclinal folds; but where force acts upon a particularization of synclinal folds constituting matter, the result is matter engaged in acceleration. This fact was recognized by Einstein in his treating acceleration and the force of gravity in his general theory of relativity as equivalent.

Many people, including scientists, are confused by the differences between velocity and acceleration. They often improperly treat acceleration as a form of motion. Velocity is a space-time measure of motion, the distance travelled during an interval of time, such a car`s going fifty miles per hour will go 50 miles of distance in one hour of time. Acceleration is clearly not a measure of distance travelled during an interval of time but is a measure of either centripetal or centrifugal force. In the case of an accelerating car it is a measure of that quantum of force required to effectuate an increase in velocity from one speed to a greater speed.

It is not possible to determine the velocity of an accelerating object for the reason that a space-time interval must be used and the object is accelerating throughout that space-time interval. The calculation of the velocity of an accelerating object necessarily overestimates its velocity, and the calculation of the velocity of an decelerating object is necessarily an underestimate. The calculation by radar, for example, of the speed of a motor car that is accelerating during a period of time would be a speed greater than its terminal speed, the degree of overestimation of speed being based upon the magnitude of forces resulting in the acceleration process. The quicker the acceleration the greater the overestimation. The courts have, however, generally recognized radar as being sufficiently accurate as a basis for speeding violations, with some judges having difficulty in understanding why radar cannot determine a precise speed of a car that is accelerating.

The overestimation of the velocity of an accelerating object results from calculating the velocity of a moving object in a manner that includes the force of acceleration as velocity. Many scientists and engineers by confusing force with velocity necessarily end up with false calculations of speed. A major achievement of the recognition of the synclinal folds as a part of the enfolding universe is the distinction between force and velocity and the recognition of acceleration as force. The force exercised during a time interval should be deducted from the speed at what is treated as an instant of time. Radar does not do this, with the instant of time being used by radar being necessarily an interval of time. The difference between the commencing speed at the start of the interval of time, which would be the terminating speed of the preceding interval of time, and the terminating speed of the time interval used for calculations, would be one measure of the force of acceleration. This quantum should be deducted from the terminating speed to obtain a more accurate estimation of the velocity of the moving object.

Newton properly recognized that which causes the acceleration of a falling apple as a force, the force of gravity upon the apple. He did not treat gravity as a form of motion. Einstein, in turn, properly treated acceleration and gravity as equivalent, but he failed to recognized the effect of his principle of equivalency. Movement towards and away from a point equally result from forces, and thus that which gives rise to acceleration away from a center and that which gives rise to acceleration towards a center must be equivalent. Centrifugal forces away from a point of original and centripetal forces towards a point of extinction are both forces that result in acceleration and are necessarily equivalent.

Einstein anticipated that there would be a displacement of spectral lines towards the red by a gravitational potential. Afterwards it was Hubble who treated the red shift as cosmological and not gravitational in nature. Both were right and both were wrong. Acceleration is a result of centripetal and centrifugal forces that are active forces. Centrifugal and centripetal forces both result in acceleration but the acceleration should not be confused with the forces causing the acceleration. Einstein was correct in recognizing that acceleration was a product of forces but wrong in treating it as a force. Hubble was correct in believing that the universe is expanding but wrong in not recognizing that the universe is contracting at the same time, with the expansive centrifugal force cancelling out the contractive centripetal force, resulting in a steady state universe.

All units of manifestation of matter are space-time events. Even a car`s going 50 miles in one hour is an event. Particles such as atoms and molecules are events that have become frozen in time and space. Forces give rise to a great multiplicity of events, but forces are not ingredients of events, even though time and space are ingredients of events. Forces are not events, even though they are often confused with events. Interactions betweeen forces, however, can give rise to events and to the energy underlying events, but forces are not energy but are capable of transfering by energy-less means energy from one system to another.

Scientists often do not distinguish between oscillation and frequency and often even define frequency in terms of oscillaion. Frequency, for example, is often defined as the number of oscillations per second of an electromagnetic wave. To designate a phemonena as oscillating implies that it is swinging backward or forward like a pedulum or that it is moving back and forth between two points.The forces that leads to the oscillation is a centrifugal force combined combined with a centripelal force. The term frequency when defined as to include the number of oscillation during an interval of time is a measure of a measure of motion and not a measure of active force.

An oscillating object that swings backward and forward or going back and forth is subject to oscillation between centripetal and centrifugal points. Oscillation as is acceleration is a measure of an active force or forces of which it is a product and is not a measure of motion.

The word frequency is sometimes used to designate the number of repetitions of a periodic process in a unit of time. A periodic process is one that occurs or recurs at regular intervals. To measure the number of repetitions during an unit of time is is not a space-time event that have definite points in time and space. The actual number of repetitions per unit of time is a measure only of repetitions per unit of time and the number of repetitions is not dependent on spatial components.

Where frequency refers to the number of oscillations per interval of time, the oscillations are necessarily space-time events formed by the working together of centripetal and centrifugal forces. In this situation, the number of oscillation per second is related to not only the the temporal but also the spatial components of the recuring event. Frequency is not an active force and the number of repetitions or the number of oscillations of a periodic process per unit of time is clearly a measure of motiom.

Prior to the 20th century, science knew of only two types of energy: mechanical and electrical energy. Mechanical energy included such things as mechanics, acoustics and thermodynamics, and dealt with the movement of bodies and pariculars. The 20th century added a third form of energy, allegedly arising from the motion and amalgamation of fields. Much of 20th century science rests upon the presumption of radiant energy. It is clear, however, no one has ever established that a field is energy even though a field can transfer energy. The Unified Theory recognizes that radiating energy does not exist and that many person who believe that it does exist confuse force with energy.

The conception that the energy-state of mass can be transformed into energy-state of radiation is false, and the conception has never had any support in evidence at all. Einstein`s formula is not wrong. What is wrong is the conception of the phenomenon of radiation. What passes as radiation is not energy but, as the Unified Theory will make clear, one system can transmit energy to another system by an energy-less means of transfer. The transfer is not by means of radiant energy.

The Unified Theory also recognizes that electricity is not in itself a form of energy. Elementary electrical particles do not exist. The electron and proton are constructs to explain the interplay among various types of centripetal and centrifugal forces. As the Unified Theory will make clear, bodies may take on electrical charges but these charges are the effect of forces acting upon them and are not a result of gaining or losing electrons and protons.

Many physicists accept what the call constants, which they treat as quantities. Examples of constants would be the velocity of light, c, Newton`s constant of gravity, G,the electric charge of a single electron, e,Plank`s constant b, and the so-called vacumum permittivity. For a discussion of constants, please see the article Inconstant Cantants , by John D.Barrow and John K. Webb, June 2005, Scientific American. In the article, Barrow and Webb state "remarkably, no one has ever successfully predicted or explained any of the constants" and that physicists "have no idea why the take the special numerical values that they do." The problems with constants that Barrow and Webb have are a result of presuppositions they make, in want of any evidentiary suupport, that qualities of active forces may be treated as quantities of objects existing in time and space and engaged in motion. Active forces are not quantities, are not energy although they may give rise to energy, and they do no exist in time and space or engage in motion. The authors` treatment of constants result from their confusing energy with force, leading to presupposed quantities of matter. The attribution to constants features that forces could not have leads to unsupported quantities that could not be derivative from the manifestation of matter. Once force is understood, the problems of constants no longer exist.

Postulates and Working Hypotheses Derivative Principles of Conservation and Equivalency

Four Natural Reference Systems

© Wilson Ogg