Untested “Theory” of Instantaneous (0)x+y=0

This is an untested idea with no relevant data that supports these views.

Do not take this post seriously.


Theory of Instantaneous
{“Purpose-Action-Reaction-Result –> Redefined”}

Presently Physics Bases’ All of its Findings on the Following Concept:

(Purpose)Action +
Reaction = Result

In mathematical terms it would be stated as follows:

(Addition) 1 +
1 = 2

In common day use of mechanics it would be stated as follows:

(Electricity)Light Switch +
Open Switch = Lighted Room

Everything we do today has a purpose. The purpose defines what action we will take. The reaction then defines the result.

Here is an example in how this defines our lifestyle:

(Human Body Needs Water) Get up and get a glass of water +
Drink Water = Necessity Fulfilled

What if this concept is what holds are current technology from advancing beyond its actual limits? What if there was a better way to advance our current technology?

“They say the world is flat, yet I believe it to be round. I am going to sail across the seas until I fall off of the edge of our great world.”

What if we have been approaching our current technology from a perspective that is a simplistic as the first man to light a fire? How about the genius that invented the wheel? Simplistic approach to a complex world – our current technology is derived from a simplistic way of viewing the world in which we live.

What if our next step in advancing technology is to find a way to resolve a yet untested concept?
Let us step through to the next age in technology, by first redefining our basic concepts in physics. Let us open the door to a very simplistic approach to the current world we live in.

What if we found a way to have the
(Purpose)Action +
Reaction = Result
happen in the same instance?

This is not a concept we can yet conceive, yet there is already evidence that it exists.

The following well known physics experiment offers some existing evidence (Figure 1).

(Physics) Ball in Motion +
Strikes Ball at Rest = Ball in Motion Rests, Ball at Rest Motions

If you break down the experiment further you will find the following results:

(Physics) Ball in Motion/Ball at Rest/Ball at Motion Rests/Ball at Rest Motions.

The Purpose, action, reaction, & result happen almost instantaneously.

Figure 1: Physics Ball in Motion/Ball at Rest

Physics Ball in Motion/Ball at Rest

Another example of this is a simple element, h2o.

Although water is compromised of millions of much smaller particles, they come together as one to form a much larger body. Take a spoon from this body, and still millions of particles perform the same result, water. Break down to only one particle and you get the element h2o. Addition of 1 more particle of h2o, and they merge seamlessly without a the equation of

(Purpose)Action +
Reaction = Result

It happens instantaneously. If you were to try and monitor the amount of time it took for two separate bodies of h2o to become one it would not be possible, as time is not relevant in this instance. You may time the amount of time it takes for one drop of water to land on top of another drop, but it is not possible to record the time it takes to merge the 2. You could as well use a slow motion camera and watch as they merge and argue the point that it took time for the merger, but it was you that placed in motion the bonding of two separate entities of h2o. The bond will happen regardless of any purposeful event placed on the two separate entities. You could as well argue that when you release a drop of water into a glass, that it causes a reaction that moves the water away from the point of contact, stating that this proves the result is not instantaneous. My debate to this is to ask you how long did it take for the h20 to become h20 when they were placed together?

A possible avenue in defining the theory of instantaneous is to state that when you have an exact replica placed next to another replica, there is no reaction or action, all that happens within that interaction is
instantaneous.

Another example of Theory of Instantaneous is to simply look in a mirror. While looking in the mirror blink twice and wave. What happens? How is it that the exact thing happens at the exact same time? Why yes of course you have to move your arm, but how is it that there is not a reaction needed for the same thing to happen in the mirror? Does it take time for your image in the mirror to be replicated? Does the amount of time it takes for your image to travel from your own person to the mirror change if you are distant? Is it really just an optical illusion? Or is it a very little researched process that we cannot yet comprehend?

They are the exact mirror of one another yet they are separate entities, consisting of separate atoms.

Albert Einstein believed that time was relative, and was able to partially
validate this belief via quantum physics.

My theory may seem an irrational and misinformed simplistic view of a much more complex physics fundementals, yet further research
may validate some of my findings.

Theory of Instantaneous

I took our theory and used two examples. The first example displays what we know as to be fact in today’s physics:
(Transform a number to binary T2B) 3 +
T2B = 00000011
In the second example I used one that is not common to today’s physics:
(h20) h20 + h20 = h20
Immediately you notice that the if the action is the same as the purpose the reaction and result is the same as the purpose. When you take two seperate types, wether the action is different or wether the reaction is seperate from the purpose it causes things to happen over time, or incrimentally. When everything used in each value or function is the same, the result is instantaneous.

This leads to my next question:
How do we make two seperate values the same, without a reaction or a linear equation?

What examples of Theory of Instantaneous do we have in basic arithmetic? A circle, is a perfect example. No matter what where you start from in the center, the distance from the center is the same to the outer edge. No matter what angle you start at on the outer edge, the angle or purpose of that angle continues. A square changes the distance from center to outer edge dependant on the angle you point your line. The curve of a square is exactly the same, and then changes abrupbtly at a 90 degree angle. What is the circumference of a circle? Circumference of a circle is Pi2 and their the circumference goes on infinitely. You could argue that linear does not apply in regards to a circle in some sense.

My thoughts drift a bit in regards to this, what if we tried to take the average circumference of a triangle, square and a circle? Not possible in arithmetic terms?

Could we possibly consider that Pi is also the formula that defines infinite?

If you apply speed of motion to a circle, what is the result? Let’s state that the distance from the center of a circle to the edge is 10 units. How do we define units? Units is a linear equation, with step for step reaching the result measurement. What if we apply speed to our circle, the distance is the same in our terms, yet one end reaches the other end of the linear equation quicker. Does this not change what the actual eqaution is?

What if rather then taking our basic mathematical formules from a stand point of one dimension, why not apply 3 dimensional shape to our equations? Is this above our current intelligence?

Many many unanswered questions to a what all will all a delusional theory at best, yet those in physics may take interest in this concept.

0
  Related Posts