Frank

Questor, there is obviously a lot of rotation and spin existing in the universe from galaxies to sub atomic particles. It may be that this contradict the concept of big bang but I do not have a problem with that.

That is an interesting question. The man who first put forward the big bang theory was a catholic monk called Georges Lemaître that worked on the behalf of the vatican. I have come to regard the big bang theory as a religious construct of creationism. I do not want to have to defend the big bang theory.

Well I did not initially intend to explain orbits, but simply argue that universally expanding matter is not capable of explaining them. However according to what has previously been theorized and indeed observed regarding the formation of planetary systems, the planets are formed in the disk of dust and gas surrounding new stars. The proto planetary disk is already spinning and therefore has rotary motion. So the initial "push" is the rotation already inherent in the collapsing cloud of interstellar dust and gas that formed the star and planets at the outset. I must confess that I do not think that we have reached the final understanding of gravity and that there are inconsistencies in the current standard model.

Newton’s first law of motion is a prerequisite for the expansion theory. The first law of motion being “every object will remain at rest or in uniform motion in a straight line unless compelled to change its state by the action of an external force” Otherwise known as the law of inertia. Without the first law of motion you cannot explain gravity by the earth (or any other heavenly body) expanding to accelerate objects on its surface (equivalence principle). Let us for the sake of the argument assume that uniform motion is not a straight line but curved in a spiral as expansion theory claim. In order for an orbit velocity to appear to be stable in relation to expanding bodies, the orbiting body need to accelerate in order to appear to be orbiting with a fixed velocity to cover the ever-increasing distance in space. In fact an object does not need to be orbiting another body at all in order to behave as if it does bearing in mind that expansion theory reject the notion of “force at a distance”. Using the Earth and the moon as an example you can therefore remove the earth from the equation and the moon would still orbit in the same way around that region of perceived space since the earth can obviously not affect the moons trajectory (no “force at a distance”). The continuous acceleration of the moon as it spirals outward can also not be explained unless you apply a force to continuously accelerate it. This would again require the need for an unknown force that cannot be explained by expansion theory. Re defining the first law of motion to say that an object naturally is both moving in a spiral and accelerating would remove the basis of expansion theory as you do not get the inertia of mass required to explain gravity with the expansion of the planet surface. The conclusion must therefore stand that orbits cannot be explained within the confines of expansion theory as it is formulated in the book “The final theory”.