For you I'll go over some of this again, maybe you missed it the first two times, it was quite a while ago. It'd be changing the earth's orbital parameters alright, but the other way, other things being equal. An increase in mass would increase the gravitational attraction between earth and sun, and earth and moon, and they'd be spiraling in towards each other. In fact the opposite is measurably occurring. That's just one of the reasons why the expanding earth theory is almost certainly nonsense, but the proponents of this stuff can't agree among themselves about it. They've worked out a couple of scenarios, in which the earth expands without an increase in mass, which would mean the dinosaurs had to deal with about 4 times the earth's current surface gravity, or it expands with an increase in mass to keep the surface gravity constant, which would cause major changes in orbits. And of course there are multiple variations in which the earth's diameter increases by varying amounts, from around 20% to 100%.If Earth is supposed to be expanding, wouldn't the extra mass move it farther from the sun?
To get around those issues they have to postulate that the gravitational constant is changing. They provide no plausible mechanism for the expansion, or a source for the increase in mass if that's what's happening, or any evidence that the gravitational constant is changing. The real evidence indicates that the gravitational constant cannot have changed by more than one part (if my memory's correct) in a few trillion over the lifetime of the cosmos, the diameter of the earth has not changed by more than a few percent since its formation, and its orbital parameters have similarly not changed appreciably in its lifetime. The weight of evidence is heavily against an expanding earth.