It is a distinct inductive possibility that as Mars' orbit
widens and approaches the orbit of Earth, then the Earth will
tug forward on Mars. Because the Earth has a higher velocity
than Mars, Mars will speed up. Because of this increase in
velocity, Mars could then retreat back to an orbit further
from the Earth and the Sun. This could then 'correct' and
straighten the major-axis. There are numerous other possibilities.
The approach of Mars could also distort the Earth's orbit,
which then slows, and as a consequence gets closer to Venus,
which could lead to a similar billiard ball effect on Venus's
orbit. With the Earth then approaching Venus, the Earth could
speed up, pushing Earth back to an orbit similar to its original
position. In this way, the planets might regulate one another
quite neatly. I discuss these and other potential eventualities
in the section: Newtonian-Planck
Gravity
An opportunity for a task presents itself:
What does Horizon Ephemeris predict Mars' Perihelion
Precession to be? In the section on Mercury
I offered a blueprint example of how to go about this in great
detail. In the section Sorting
Horizons there is a little app that makes sorting their
data much easier.
The algorithm OGS15
(orbit-gravity-sim-15.exe) can actually give a more precise
analysis than offered by anyone so far. Thus the task would
then be to compare Scenario [64]
to the Horizon Ephemeris data. Ideally the
years from 1900-2020 are shown in the sample
'E' in the list
above to be 16.11
as/Ey. This has a fairly large error-margin of 0.5
as/Ey because it is the result of Scenario [54]
iterating at 1500 seconds per time-quanta,
whereas you will get a result 100x more accurate
with Scenario [64]
(option N) that
calculates at just 15 seconds per quantum
jump. Alternatively Scenario [34]
(option M) could
be a more prudent calculation because it uses 150
seconds per quanta.
Scenario [64]
is just way too slow for my little PC. But that did not stop
me from writing the application in anticipation of better
computers offering me results to which I am objectively blind.
That is how open methodology is supposed to work anyways.
My intuition tells me that the results as they stand, are
however, good enough. Although we can anticipate that the
Relativists may yet still conjure up some values for how the
Einstein formulae are supposed to explain the Perihelion
Precession of Mars. When they do squeeze some numbers to fit
into their 'science of the gaps', then such accuracy as Scenario
[64] may be
useful to once more show their pseudo-methodology to be the
smoke and mirrors that it always was.
But it has been categorically proved that the Relativists
miscalculated the Newtonian value of Mercury's orbit by simply
ignoring the Z-axis in the section: Mercury.
They attribute 8% of Mercury's Perihelion
Precession to Einstein, but neglect a 13%
effect that results from placing the Newtonian formula into
3 dimensions. The Relativists only use a
crude 2D ring-planet statistical model; not
an evolutionary 3D algorithm like OGS15.
So ignoring the Z-axis is not even their
worst miscalculation.
Perhaps the Relativists can finally have the maturity to admit
that they have been guilty of sophistry, egotism and nepotism
all along? After all, the pun on the word 'Relative' is a
fairly subtle admission, whether subconscious, or not. We
can only hope and pray that they learn some grace and humility,
if nothing else.
