Therefore the closer a body is to the host, the greater the mutual force of gravity and so the greater the amount of angular propulsive force will be needed to maintain the orbit. And so there is less likely to be a surplus of propulsive force to drive spin.
The table below of the motions of the major planets is taken from a NASA site. It serves the simple purpose of showing that there is a direct relationship between the mass of a planet, the distance from the sun and length of day (spin velocity).
An excellent example is to compare Venus and the Earth. My theory states that if Venus, having a similar mass to the the Earth system & therefore a similar gravity and propulsive force was in the same orbital position as the Earth, it would have a similar rotational velocity to the the Earth. In fact, it would have a higher rotational velocity of say, notionally 12 hours because the combined mass of the Earth/Moon system is 6.04 which is 20% greater than Venus's. This means that due to the higher mutual attraction of the Earth system & the Sun, less rotational propulsive force remains than would be the case if Venus occupied the same orbital slot. So to make the point, Earth rotates at the rate that the Second Law predicts relative to the rotational motion of Venus. Now take the opposite case: How would the Earth system behave if it occupied the same orbital slot as Venus. By applying the two laws, as the gravitational force between the Earth system and the Sun would be much greater, the Earth system could not maintain a stable orbit in this location so its orbit would decay.
The Earth system behaves as it should in a gravity propulsion universe.
The same applies to Mars relative to the Earth. A much smaller planet than Earth but 50% further away would have a much smaller requirement for orbital propulsive force and therefore would still have significant remaining rotational force to enable a 24 hour day.
When the same logic is applied to all of the major planets it shows that they obey the Laws. You can argue about how planetary satelites work. When considering them you have to take into account the fact of orbital resonance. Generally, due to the short distances between many of them, some are not only locked with their host, they are also locked orbitally with each other and that makes simple comparisons impossible.
Now this brings me back to my fundamental disagreement with mainstream science which maintains that from time immemorial, by momentum alone, the planets and stars have somehow maintained their orbits (and positions) in spite of the overwhelming force of gravity accelerating the objects together. It seems to me, fundamentally bad science that an accelerative tractor force (gravity) vector does not require a contrary accelerative propulsive force vector at right angles to it in order to maintain a circular orbit. To assert that momentum alone, which is not a propulsive force and therefore, IS NOT equivalent to an accelerative gravitational force is fundamentally flawed. Gravity cannot at the same time accelerate matter with a tractor force yet allow it to escape and propel it away from it. That is simply nonsense. And without a propulsive force that counteracts gravity, It is fundamentally true that celestial objects will ultimately acclerate into each other.
Like gravity, the propulsive force obeys laws. I have tried to formulate the laws in the following section: The Laws