*** I am sorry for misrepresenting your ideas: I detest it when someone misinterprets mine.
On the other hand I cannot say that my confusing what others say with what you are saying clears your theory of the charge of being in disagreement with observed science in my view.
Firstly to say that everything is expanding is unthinkable: the earth must then be expanding, we are expanding and the measuring tape is expanding so we can't detect the expansion by measurement is what you might be saying in your theory.
But if I am quoting you right this time then it must mean that the earth should be expanding at a rate of some 9.8 m/s and it has been doing so for the past 4.5 billion years or so according to some estimations by scientists.
How come the earth is not yet touching the surface of the sun after all this time if all is expanding?
Ostensibly, the space between the earth and sun - for example - is functional (not 'empty') space; for the same reason that two microcosmic entities never make 'contact' and are repelled from each other, macrocosmic entities don't make contact. Consider a repelling force acting between any two microcosmic or macrocosmic entities. Newton allows for it, in his Preface to the Principia (Excerpt from http://forums.delphiforums.com/EinsteinGroupie, follows):
From the beginning of the 1st to the end of the 2nd page of Newton's three page Preface to The PRINCIPIA MATHEMATICA, Newton is discussing the motions of falling objects and orbiting planets. By way of his applied mathematical descriptions of the effects of the force of gravity. At this time, Newton offers the following statement about what causes the gravitationally induced motions of planets & apples, quote:
“For I am induced by many reasons to suspect that they may all depend on certain forces by which the particles of bodies, by some causes hitherto unknown, are either mutually impelled towards each other, and cohere in regular figures, or are repelled and recede from each other; which forces being unknown, philosophers have hitherto attempted the search of Nature in vain."
That quote and its extraction will henceforth be referred to here, as THE GRAVITATIONAL ALTERNATIVE. Not my gravitational alternative; Newton's Gravitational Alternative to be exact.
Einstein employs it (a repelling force) as the heart of the General Theory.
Secondly, you have not understood my point about inertia: you seem to be reaffirming that the force exerted by the expanding apple constitutes inertia. My question in relation to inertia was why should the object that is being pushed back by the expanding apple put up resistance at all to being moved. Or why should someone in an elevator that is accelerating 'upwards' resist such uplift in the first place so as to exert force on the floor of the elevator.
Your questions regarding inertia are as applicable to Standard Theory as they are to my proposed status quo. You seem to anticipate that I have somehow purported to have rewritten fundamental elements of physics, whereas, I have merely reinterpreted what is already in situ. Inertia is the reluctance to move or change state of motion, but why should an object be reluctant to move according to your theory? Why is motion not without effort?
With no puns intended, please expand on your question:
"Why is motion not without effort?"
Roger