Hi Maurice and welcome to Hypography.
I think you'll find that this thread contains a very large number of disproofs of Expansion Theory. It's by no means comprehensive, but its a great place to find them.
Those of us who have been active in the discussions would point especially to issues having to do with the inability to explain orbits (McCutcheon's "assumption" that all things move in curved lines simply does not square with the fact that in the presence of masses that those curves will function differently based on the distance from the mass), the seeming special status of masses that are "touching" in order to "feel gravity" (e.g. why is this expansion "directional" toward the center of the larger mass?), and the inconsistencies that occur in celestial distances (space must expand along with the mass in order for celestial bodies to expand, but if this happened on Earth, everything would just float).
You're right that it provides no testable hypotheses, and the book I believe in the very first chapter simply defines away proving the theory by simply saying that the theory makes exactly the same predictions as Newton-Einstein, and in the rest of the book, simply replicates their equations.
Its just a more complicated way of "interpreting" the data, that ends up being highly self-contradictory and fails to explain many observed phenomena.
You'll find that we've pretty much beaten this one to death, so do read the thread thoroughly, but I'm sure we'll all have fun if you have further questions or ideas!
Never be afraid to laugh at yourself, after all, you could be missing out on the joke of the century,
Buffy
