All the phenomens can be explained by one force and this force is the
pressure. (Don´t forget the power of thought! You also can move yourself by
the power of thought! Quite right. You get yourself to move with the help of the muscles .
You so you send message of your brains to your muscles and you get yourself to move?
What is power/force of this thought, which get you to move there where you want?).


We can describe by people what happens in the atomcores all the time. For
example one thousand people can go to the space and curl up close to each
other. Now we have made an energyconsentration of people that covers a
certain spot of the space. We know that the biggest part of the atoms is
empty space. Also between people there exists empty space that does not
expand or curve.

Now these people can begin to straighten or in other words to open up and
this way they push themselves away from each other. One can observe the
hardest pressure in the middle of this human energyconsentration and people
who locate in the middle must do an enormeous job so that they woun´t
flatten in the centre. These people in the centre sweat the most. This is
excactly the same thing that happens without gravitation for example in the
centre of the earth and in the centre of the sun.

The density of the human energyconsentration reduces and the people push
themselves away from the centre of the human energyconsentration. Now for a
little while we can observe a phenomen of gravitation without a drawing
force (that actually does not exist) on the surface of the human
energyconsentration.

In my opinion the space does not expand or curve. If it would expand, could
you describe how does the space expand?

It is easy to describe how the energy all the time turns into a less dense
energy in the atomcores, so I think that it is time to forget all about the
magical expanding and curving of the space. You can also forget all the
spare spacedimentions, the dark substance and the dark energy.

So the space does not expand or curve!

The atomcores expand and open up expanding electrons and expanding photons
and they beam their expanding energy as waves away from themselves. This is
how it goes!

When you look at the galaxy, you can understand that the energy inside the
galaxy is denser than outside the galaxy. If you look at a star, you can
understand that energy inside the star is denser than outside the star. This
way you will know for sure that the energy inside the atomcore is denser
than outside the atomcore. It is not difficult to understand that the energy
inside the protons / neutrons is denser than outside of them and the energy
inside the qvarks is denser than outside the qvarks and so on...

It it also easy to realize that outside the visible universe the is an area,
where is really much more energy than the visible universe has all together
and the energy some where out there is much denser than than it is in a
visible universe. Still in that area far away from the visible universe
there is no centre point where the energy would be denser than outside it.

That three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentration that bems energywaves
with the nature of the galaxies, is formed also from separate
three-dimentionally expanding energyconsentrations ect. And so the smaller
separate energyconsentrations we talk about, the denser and denser the
energy is all the time.

So the atomcore does not have a centre point, where the energy would be
denser than outside it. There is no centre point also at the universe,
outside which the energy would be less denser.

Because the MOVEMENT takes place towards a less dense area, then the visible
universe MOVES as an entity away from that one point that is really far away
from the visible universe and where the energy is much denser than it is in
a visible universe.

Yeah? Sounds cool. Tell me more.

__________________
"As truth is gathered, I rearrange,
Inside out, outside in - Perpetual change." - A British rock band

Sorry, but no. Pressure is based on other effects, which can have much more fundamental interactions

I'm going to invoke Pauli here.

This isn't right. This isn't even wrong.

Dear, you just said 2 plus 2 equals green.

__________________
"The beauty of that discussion of averages is that you don't have to be an expert in Apollo or in photography in order to see where this time study "analysis" breaks down. You just have to be, well...not an idiot." -JayUtah

I was thinking more along the lines of Chris Rock. 2 + 2 = jello

__________________
Some try to tell me, thoughts they cannot defend,... - Moody Blues.

Why persons believe to the additional space dimensions? They say that two dimensional mortal was not can understand three space dimensions. Who understand two dimensional mortal, to the object or macrocosm? Even though mortal would be how thin ever, so in any case it is three-dimensional. If you take away as the thickness's completely, no left behind remains anything. Therefore is futile to justify on the two dimensional matters additional space dimensions. Not two dimensional matters exist. We don't needs additional space dimensions to explain how macrocosm seriously functioned.

Take a look some my videos.

http://www.youtube.com/profile_video...Etimespace&p=r

1. Idea from Kuopio, is first new video.

2. No gravity. Kuopio

4. bending light. Kuopio

With good english

Other one is with my terrible english, sorry about that

Pardon me if I'm wrong, but this new thread sounds very like a continuation of this one: One Small Idea, a thread started by JukriS that was closed a few weeks ago per the 30-day rule. I recognize that the previous thread was hijacked by Motor Daddy; this may be reason enough to allow continuation here, but that's the Moderators' call.

I may be mistaken. It's clear that JukriS's first language is not English, so I make allowances for the occasional oddness of expression (e.g., "atomcore" for "nucleus"). However, the ideas, phrases and the general exposition seem very similar between these threads. Perhaps JukriS can explain what is different here, apart from the new metaphor (compressed human bodies).

Just one obsevation on the first paragraph of the OP (and title of the thread), though: a force is not a pressure. Pressure is force per unit area, as these words are used in a physics context in English. It may be that some translation software renders JukriS's (otherwise correct) words this way, so it is possibly that JukriS is not responsible for this. Nevertheless, it does give the exposition of the ideas a bad start.

I meant pressure power. Propulsive power. According to my thought, three-dimensionally expansive atoms push each others towards less dense areas in the space which does not expand or arches. From the expansive atoms' cores protrude all the time expansive electrons which get next atomic core to explode much towards to their energy, its atom from which explosive electron came.
Also comets get planets to explode much energy away towards from the planet. Then planet emit much to his energy. If meteor burn out in Globe's atmosphere, so then Globe absorbed meteor energy to his presumably.

Jukris, do you have any quantitative results/predictions from your model? In particular do you have any that might be compared to observation/experiment?

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/l2

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/223

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/237

http://www.onesimpleprinciple.com/243

Two pieces of advice:

1. You really need to improve your English. Either that, or use your own language.
   
2. You need to be more humble. Calling theories that have been developed, used and tested for several generations "stupid" damages your credibility.

__________________
"All your bias are belong to us." Ara Pacis
"A witty saying proves nothing." Voltaire

Are you referring to the additional dimensions hypothesized to explain strings, under what is loosely called "String Theory"? My understanding is that they are required as part of the explanation for strings. Not all persons "believe" in this, however. I for one am seriously skeptical.

I'll agree with this wholeheartedly. The idea of a "two-dimensional mortal" (or immortal, for that matter) makes no sense to me. But then I'll admit to prejudice in this regard, being three-dimensional myself. Just out of curiosity, who do you know is proposing the actual existence of these 2D beings?

This seems a non sequitur. It may be that there are more than three spatial dimensions, though that is yet to be demonstrated. That two dimensions are inadequate doesn't much bear on whether more than three are required. In short, three dimensions are necessary, but may not be sufficient.

So much the worse. First it's force, then pressure, now power. Do you (JukriS) understand the differences between these English words (always to be understood as they are used in Physics): "force", "pressure", "work" or "energy", "power"? They are not synonyms, except for "work" and "energy".

Power is the time rate of using energy or doing work; the SI unit for it is the watt. Energy/work is measured in joules, pressure in pascals, force in newtons.

To the extent that you mix up these quite distinct ideas in your writing, you make it impossible for others to understand what you are saying.

"Quantitative" means that there are numbers involved, e.g. a quantitative prediction might be that an apple will fall with an acceleration of 9.81 m/s². I saw no numbers in your references.

So

Do you have any quantitative predictions derived from your theory/model that we can compare with observation or experiment?

Like those suckers that pay thousands of dollars to learn the "higher teachings" of Transcendental Meditation and wind up bouncing cross-legged on their butts under the delusion that they are levitating?

Only in my dreams have I ever willed myself to move by means other than my own muscle-power.

__________________
Microsoft is over if you want it.

The bar has been lowered for the promotion of ATM ideas; the bar for the acceptance of ATM ideas must remain high.

I move by means other than my own muscle power all the time. Train, bus, car airoplane...

__________________
'The eye can only see what the mind is prepared to accept'

Yakov Surfindude:Now here's a real authority on pressure.

YouTube link, which makes it data from an unimpeachable source.

__________________
A person's name, or a mark representing it, as signed personally or by deputy, as in subscribing a letter or other document.

Quite right. You get yourself to move with the help of the muscles . You so you send message of your brains to your muscles and you get yourself to move? What is power of this thought, which get you to move there where you want?

I too would like to know what's new between this thread and others. Beyond your example, here are a few others:


Onesimpleprinciple.com

Answers

A Riddle from Savolainen

__________________
I say there is an invisible elf in my backyard. How do you prove that I am wrong?

Disclaimer: Avatar is not an official NASA image and does not imply any specific interplanetary or interstellar capability.

The Leif Ericson Cruiser