Orbital stability and the Inverse square laws
Stability of orbits
The orbiting mass raises another issue, stability. We know that a stable orbit requires a balance between the accelerative field in which the masses reside and the centrifugal force caused by the velocity of the object being confined to a curved path.
Fg = Fc. Force of gravity = Centrifugal force
Fg = g m1xm2 / R^2
Fc = m1 x V^2 /R

The question becomes whether or not the balance between gravitational and centrifugal force is preserved. They are actually predicted.

Force of Gravity
If the age of the universe were to double, the effect of gravity between the two objects would be reduced by the square of the increased distance between the two objects. In this case 1.59^2… = 2.59 times. There would be 2.59 less pull on the orbiting mass preserving the orbit. (The A2/A1 = (T1/T2) ^(4/3) term could also have been used).

In order for celestial stability to be preserved, there must be a corresponding and exact reduction in the centrifugal force, otherwise celestial stability would be destroyed and no stable orbits would exist.

Centrifugal force
If the age of the universe were to double, the absolute velocity of the object is diminished by .79 times and radius of orbit is increased 1.59 times. The net effect of V^2/R = .79^2/1.59 = .39 or a 2.59 times reduction in the centrifugal force.

Balance is preserved
Balance is preserved in orbiting objects in an expanding space-time field. While the specific example of doubling the age of the universe was used, the case is generally true. The effect of gravity is reduced by the square of the increased absolute distance, and the centrifugal force is reduced by the square of the decreased absolute velocity divided by the increased absolute distance.
Fg = Fc
1/D^2 = V^2/D
D2/D1 == (T2/T1)^(2/3)
V2/V1 == (T1/T2)^(1/3)
((T1/T2)^(2/3))^2 = ((T1/T2)^(1/3))^2 / (T2/T1)^(2/3)
(T1/T2)^(4/3) = (T1/T2)^(4/3)

The gravitational constant is constant
Note that while the effect of gravity changes with time, the gravitational constant is still constant. The gravitational constant will remain constant in absolute measures. Also, most local or relative measures of the gravitational constant will also remain constant. If the deflection of a spring, or the rate an object falls was used to determine the local gravitational constant, the relative measures will remain constant. Constants are the result of geometry based on expansion, not chance.

The inverse square Law
Note that in the above relationship describing how the effect of gravity and centrifugal force between two objects change in absolute measure is the same relationship derived in describing how absolute acceleration changes
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)

This absolute accelerative field correlates to the same absolute measure of distance by squaring the distance measure.

D2/D1 == (T2/T1)^(2/3)
A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3)
The inverse square law for accelerative fields correlates to a squaring of the distance measures.

(D2/D1)^2= ((T2/T1)^(2/3))^2 = (T1/T2)^(4/3) = A2/A1

Both gravitational and electromagnetic forces are accelerative fields defined by the same inverse square law.

(It appears that the distance measures associated with gravity are very small compared to the distance measures associated with charge. Electric charge measures of distance also have a positive and negative sense).


It is all geometry

Principles result from geometry
It has been shown that if spacetime expands as proposed along absolute measures, then not only do all measures of relative distance preserve their proportional measure; all measures of relative time maintain their proportional value. What is happening is that concepts we assume to be principles, like the principles of conservation of energy and momentum, and Newton’s “Law of Gravity” are actually the result of a specific geometric expansion of spacetime. For example, the spinning mass, which we perceive as indicating conservation of angular momentum, is only a relative description that is established by the geometric relationship of expansion. Kepler’s third law, which can be proved by conservation of angular momentum and the inverse square law, is actually the result of a geometry that results in the perseverance of relative measures of angular momentum and the inverse square law. From an absolute perspective, energy is continuously being lost due to the expansion of space. From an absolute perspective, momentum is continuously being lost due the expansion of spacetime. It is only our relative perspective, which is the result of a specific geometric expansion of spacetime, that yields the conservation principles.

Inverse square field relationships
Also, the field relationships observed in electromagnetic and gravitational relationships become stable and predicted as characteristics of spacetime. The A2/A1 == (T1/T2)^(4/3) relationship was derived as a result of expansion, and it is to that relationship the accelerative fields of gravity and electromagnetism is conformant to. While gravity and electromagnetism have different dimensional scales of length, they both respond to the changes in length the same way. Gravity and electromagnetism are both the result of the same physical process of expansion.

The cosmological red shift next

Continued