I’m staggered Michael that Albert didn’t have your foresight.
He certainly did have such forsight, hence the introduction of a non-zero constant in GR by his own hand. Static universe theory was in fact first "explained" (mathematically) by Einstein himself. It's not like I added a non-zero constant first.
Why on Earth did he introduce an early 20th century version of dark energy in order to explain how a static universe didn’t collapse when accordingly to you it's all done by “rotation” and “momentum”.
I didn't suggest that it was *all* done by momentum alone, I just pointed out that the EM could be a *relatively small* influence all things considered.
Amazing how the finest minds in physics have struggled to make a static universe stable yet you seem to have solved this vexing issue.
The only "idea" I even proposed is that if Birkeland's cathode solar model is correct, there may indeed be a small charge repulsion process going on between stars and potentially between galaxies. I have no need however for "space expansion", 'dark energy", "dark matter", "inflation" or any of the other junk you're adding to GR. Pure EM field effects are probably all I'd ever require.
Now that the stability of a static universe has been solved and you are a leading expert in the field,
Er, since when? You act like I'm the first and only person in history to suggest that we live inside of a static universe. That's obviously not the case.
I’d like to pick your brains by asking the following questions.
For what purpose really? Do you really care how I answer any of your questions?
(1) How is the linear relationship between measured redshift and distance preserved when all galaxies are now moving in space due to rotation and have a Doppler shift component (both longititudinal and SR transverse components) in the measurement?
The doppler shift component is likely to be quite small compared to the tired light component for starters. The overall density and "clouds of dust" components would probably have a greater overall influence in the redshift relationship than the relative motion of objects in very distant clusters. I'm also leery of the claim that there is always likely to be (going to be) a smooth distance/redshift relationship because that would preclude the the existence of cloudier areas and clearer areas of spacetime. I doubt that space is so highly accommodating to our oversimplification requirements related to math.
(2) How does the n-body problem of massive objects such as galaxies in a cluster orbiting about a barycentre result in near concentric orbits like the planetary orbits in our solar system?
It doesn't. Gravity isn't the only force of nature that is acting on everything as you seem to imagine. There's also an *electrical* component.
(3) Explain the mechanisms of the following 2-body systems given that mass transfer and mergers are not going to occur due to “rotation” and “momentum”.
The optical light curves of objects such X-ray binaries and type 1A supernovae.
Gravitational waves for BH-BH, NS-NS and NS-BH mergers.
This is just a strawman argument, and an irrelevant question from the standpoint of cosmology. There's always the potential for objects to slam into each other and to merge with one another in *any* cosmological configuration. None of this has anything at all do to with cosmology theory in the first place. Supernovae are an example of things "blowing apart" too under the correct circumstances.
The one forbidden topic you won't touch is the fact that electricity, electric fields and current play a larger role in astronomy than the mainstream wants to admit.
Birkeland wasn't mystified by simple stuff like the heat source of the sun's corona, or the *physical cause* of the Earth's aurora. He physically replicated the process in his lab in fact. The moment one starts to apply that model to the universe on larger scales, the likelihood of EM charge repulsion and attraction becomes llikely. There's a natural explanation for Einstein's non-zero constant in EM fields. Nothing more is necessary to explain a static universe, and Einstein himself first proposed a static universe based on GR, not yours truly. Get real.