Helder Velez

Lisbon, Portugal

Age: 60

The space expansion is the consequence of a shrinking atom, an artifact:
Because we measure the atoms with the atoms (a self-reference, circular def or tautology) and all the equations of physics hold good whatever the atomic size, (ex:check the def of mass unit, kg, as an ensemble of N atoms and the mass of an atom as 1/N of that) you can find a formal proof, with my modest contribution, here:

A self-similar model of the Universe unveils the nature of dark energy

If you do not agree with the offered proof you can justify your position in this post: PSE-How to distinguish between the spectrum of an atom in motion and the one of a scaled atom?.
Note: I've a lot of persistent downvoters and they always refused to write the why they think that I'm wrong, even now that I'm offering 500 points for answers against my position.

I recomend the reading of the online book, written by my friend Alfredo Gouveia de Oliveira http://outrafisica.blogs.sapo.pt

With help of a dialog between 4 characters, and using only standard physics, the author presents an alternative view of the History of the Universe.

In order to be fully appreciated it should be read in chronological order (I'm used to google chrome browser and google reader).

Another reading that I share here is the book of Douglas Pinnow 'Our Resonant Universe'. It is a monography of a model of particles, based only on EM, that has only one parameter ('me'-electron mass) and derives the particle properties to within 1% of their values (barion masses well bellow 1%) and does not suffer of the barionic 'spin crisis'.

papers of my friend Alfredo in the arxiv:

None of these suggested readings has been comented or criticized until now.

2h
comment How to distinguish between the spectrum of an atom in motion and the one of a scaled atom?
@DavePhD I'm not sure that the equatiom you linked is correct: see the first eq at 21cm Cosmology by Tzu-Ching Chang et al where $\Delta E \propto m_e$
22h
comment How to distinguish between the spectrum of an atom in motion and the one of a scaled atom?
To justify my position (not really important because the 'space expansion' is not offering an explanation) you can think that the electromagnetic/gravitic fields are expanding and energy in the fields come from, well,the particle, or one can think that there is no uniform motion and particles are always accelerating and radiating energy. Remember that I asked for a reference? There is not, imo.
22h
comment How to distinguish between the spectrum of an atom in motion and the one of a scaled atom?
**Make no mistake: NO, no, no "Milky Way is the galaxy with the heaviest electrons" : After you reread my position you should think on 'ligther', but this is also incorrect. In any moment in time all the electrons/protons/neutrons/... are equal one to the others all over the universe, But in the past they were heavier than now. Note that we can not see light from the present because time is needed to come from there$_{(now)}$ to here$_{(now)}$. Then, there is nothing special about the MW.
22h
comment How to distinguish between the spectrum of an atom in motion and the one of a scaled atom?
Make no mistake: I did not change any equation - only it is shown for the first time that the equations of physics are valid in a space invariant referential (ergo:variant atom) besides the usual atomic referential (invariant atom, ergo: space expansion). The equation that explains the observations was formally derived and is a novelty: the evolution of the units M,L,T,Q is an exponential law.
23h
awarded Benefactor
23h
comment How to distinguish between the spectrum of an atom in motion and the one of a scaled atom?
In your opinion do we have enough data (H1 survey) to perceive the difference between the models?
Oct
22
comment How to distinguish between the spectrum of an atom in motion and the one of a scaled atom?
I'm 100% sure that no one else proposed in the way I'm saying. The consensus never explored what I'm showing. EVERYBODY seems to KNOW that I'm wrong, but NO ONE provided an argument against me. In a simple way: if there is an explanation to the redshift not involving cosmological motion then BBT is rescueless, because BB appears as an explanation for it. I'm giving away my credit (500 points) in an attempt to invite anyone to deny my saying.
Oct
17
awarded Promoter
Oct
8
comment How do I make an equation to be dimensionally consistent?
sorry, I was late and it is similar to the other answer.
Oct
8
answered How do I make an equation to be dimensionally consistent?
Oct
6
comment Why the galaxies forms 2D plane (or spiral-like) instead of 3D ball (or spherical-like)?
in an initial 3D random environment, the outcome of the collisions do not have a preferred plane, direction. The answers are correct here: physics.stackexchange.com/questions/24885/shapes-of-galaxies . Or else there are strange 'pizza makers' in the sky.
Oct
1
awarded Popular Question
Sep
29
comment How do we know that these radio bursts are from billions of light-years away?
WHY ? : "(In fact, radio waves that are too low in frequency cannot propagate at all through the "emptiness" of space.)"
Sep
29
comment How vacuous is intergalactic space?
Cal univ measure is the Milky Way value. The Universe Today value is the average ISM measure on all the universe. IMO.
Sep
24
awarded Autobiographer
Sep
24
awarded Autobiographer
Sep
24
awarded Autobiographer
Sep
24
awarded Autobiographer
Sep
19
comment Questions about the Jeans length
as said: from 0 to the event horizon, (not infinite ok?) ..
Sep
17
comment Do waves accelerate?
electromagnetic waves propagate with a constant $c$ speed.
1 2 3 4 5