Regardless of the hard details in the computation, the mind
always wants to jump ahead, to see the patterns in the data,
and use them to inductively predict way beyond the data. I
have two models in mind as to what awaits the future evolution
of the solar system, and these two models are quite at odds
with one another. I would need radically improved processing
power to figure which one is correct. The orbit of Mars being
the prime example of proof; that same Martian orbit which
Horizon Ephemeris will not predict even 500
years into the future. Thus it is likely that they are also
in two minds.
The first model is a stable system. As the Perihelion of Mars
approaches Earth's orbit, so the gravity of the Earth drags
Mars forward, speeding it up. This pushes Mars outwards, and
its orbit becomes more circular thereafter. As the aphelion
of Mars gets nearer to Jupiter, so Jupiter slows down Mars,
and again, the orbit is pushed away, becoming more circular.
This occurs because Mars is slower than Earth, but faster
So all the planetary orbits regulate one another in a similar
manner. I have certainly read words similar to this
elsewhere. In a previous chapter, I demonstrated this principle
in an algorithm, although it was not to any specified scale
- not describing any particular planets, just a general trend
observed fairly frequently.
Orbital eccentricity over about 86% of pure
circularity does certainly increase circularity. This is a
context dependant value, not absolute. But it serves all the
planets of the solar system. (% = distance
of perihelion over aphelion x 100).
The second model is dynamic. And the most striking information
supporting it is statistical. Looking at the details in the
orbital evolution, both from my algorithms and Horizon Ephemeris,
it is just a fact that the two most eccentric orbits, Mars
and Mercury, are also the two smallest masses, and these two
orbits are both becoming increasingly more eccentric. Whereas
all the other heavier bodies have quite circular orbits by
comparison, and all of these are in a process of becoming
more circular still. Mars is 83% eccentric,
Mercury is just 66%.
The dynamic model also has algorithmic evidence supporting
it. OGS16 is still under construction. Its
purpose is to attempt to show how retrograde moons are bodies
which are actually alternatively shared between planets. So
the outermost moons of Jupiter and Saturn get pulled away
from their parent body by the gravity of the Sun. They then
move into a spiral orbit which is unstable, and are then captured
by the nearest planet. Often this results in a moon with a
retrograde orbit. This can occur. But the only algorithmic
proof I have is also not to scale for the solar system. But
it does have a specified scale quite close, involving a pair
of hypothetical planets about 3 times more
massive than Jupiter, in orbits similar to Jupiter and Saturn.
I'll follow this up hopefully in future chapters in more detail.
So the algorithmic evidence is more accurate for the dynamic
model over the stable model. Albeit not conclusive proof.
It seems possible that Merury could end up as a moon of Venus.
Which raises the question as to where Mercury originated from?
I have already published a video (https://youtu.be/mhu4vlXWk7A)
which demonstrates the algorithms that prove that at one point
in time all the inner planets were once moons of Jupiter.
The theoretical speculation of Velikovsky may be methodologically
weak, but the inductive intuition of his as to potential movements
around the solar system is certainly a fairly good one.
So Mercury would be a more recent lost moon of Jupiter because
both Earth and Venus have very stable orbits. And these orbits
which are becoming increasingly stable. It may be that we
should not consider Mars and Mercury to be 'proper planets'.
Instead they could be termed 'radical' planets due to their
unstable orbital dynamics. Of course Mercury would have had
to pass by the orbits of Venus and the Earth to reach its
current position. Those dynamics require precision way beyond
my current equipment.
But another interesting question arises. The orbits of Jupiter,
Saturn, Uranus, Earth, Venus, and Neptune are all certainly
becoming more circular. So what caused them to be less circular
before now? If we postulate the hypothesis that such dynamics
eventually result in orbits that are almost circular, then
some fairly recent event must have distorted them to their
current eccentric elliptical shape.
If we look at the details in Saturn's orbit, we see that over
the next 3000 years Saturn's aphelion will
decrease by a total of about 10 million kilometers.
Its Perihelion will increase at the same rate. Saturn's aphelion
and perihelion are about 1500 and 1350
million kilometers respectively. Which means the orbit will
reach circularity in just 20 thousand years.
So inductively we have to conclude
that several thousand years ago something large enough to
significantly disturb Saturn and all the other planets passed
within the solar system.
Neptune being very circular was least effected, as was Venus.
It is possible that this unknown rogue body dislodged Mars
and Mercury from their original orbits as Moons around any
of the major planets. But they could have departed their parent
body (most likely Jupiter) simply as a result of the Sun's
gravity in more ancient times too.
Mars may well become a second moon of Earth in less than 200
thousand years! There are many potential scenarios with very
subtle differences resulting in a variety of outcomes. Any
of the three bodies: Earth, Moon and Mars could collide.
But the most likely scenario I can reckon is that because
Mars moves slower than Earth, it will fall behind the Earth's
orbit at its nearest rendezvous. This will slow the Earth
down which will cause a greater orbital eccentricity to develop
for the Earth - and solar seasons to come into effect. Where
will the moon be? Likely the Moon will be effected by Mars
most dramatically when the Moon is also behind the Earth.
Thus the Moon will either be dragged away completely, becoming
a rogue body itself, or a moon of Mars. I do guess that it
is most likely that the Moon will just settle into a wider
orbit. But it could even disintegrate into a ring system.
This dynamic is thus also a possible cause of any of the rings
in the solar system forming from disintigrating moons during
the encounter with the rogue body that certainly seems to
have distorted Saturn's orbit quite profoundly. I will have
to name it sometime.
So where does Mars go next? Certainly it could go back outwards
as it is sped up by Earth. But the dynamic is so volatile
that Mars could end up a Moon of Venus, or even cause more
disruption to Mercury's orbit. Mars could even disintegrate
into an asteroid belt as it is a fairly beaten up little planet
already. Apologies! My imagination is running ahead quite
In both the stable and the dynamic models, the 6
major planets stabilize one another. But it is the radical
planets, Mercury and Mars that are open to question in the
dynmaic model. Saturn must have come very close to going rogue
itself as its orbital eccentricity is only a few percentage
points closer to circular than Mars is.
When analyzing Mercury's Perihelion Precession I extracted
data from Horizon Ephemeris for Mercury's perihelion from
1774 to 2011 AD. Now compare
that data to how Mercury evolved in the OGS15
algorithm. We just want to look at the distance from the sun
for those 2 perihelions separated by
237 years or 984 Mercurial orbits: