Orbit of Venus

 The orbit of Venus has huge variations to its extremities of perihelion and aphelion. Precession and recession to its major axis are sometimes as much as 1 full degree of angle in either direction for just one orbit. This is largely due to the orbit of Venus being the most circular out of all the inner planets, whereas Mercury is the most eccentric, so its fluctuations are less extreme. So if we are to accept popular claims (see introduction) that Venus' Perihelion Precession is just +2 as/Ey (arc-seconds per Earth-year), and then note that the Newtonian N-body-gravity algorithm OGS15 (orbit-gravity-sim-15.exe) shows fluctuations more than +-2500 as/Ey then we are forced to realize that if the 2500 is diluted over 1000 years, this will yield an error margin of +-2.5. So the observation of +2 is practically worthless, as it is less than the error-margin within our realistic observational time-frame. It is just not possible to accurately claim observations averaging +2 arc-seconds over 1000 Earth-years. The orbit of Venus is so fickle that we would need to observe it accurately for 10 000 years to offer a woeful error-margin that is worse than 10%. But women were always changeable and unpredictable. Bless their ephemeral souls... It is important to visualize that 5000 as/Ey is more than two full degrees of the orbit that the aphelion-perihelion line (major axis) can shift for Venus after just two of her troublesome pirouettes. This next graph shows a typical example of the fluctuations to the orbit in the algorithm: orbit-gravity-sim-15.exe which operates according to 3D-n-body Newtonian-Planck-gravity evolution. Remember, these statistics are computational, and not historical observation. But the algorithm uses starting parameters from historical observation.

 To make matters worse there is no easily observable pattern in those fluctuations, like there are for Jupiter and Saturn. Moreover, the variations between the 2D model and the 3D model are even more extreme for Venus than they are for Mercury. Some variations are as much as 70% higher in the 2D model. This sounds counter-intuitive because the angle of the orbit is only a few degrees away from the ecliptic plane. So why should the 2D model cause 70% more precession and recession to the aphelion and perihelion than does the 3D model? It might seem like an error in the 3D model. But I have released the actual hard-code of the algorithm to allay such suspicions. I even reduced the Z-axis in the 3D model to zero for all Z-variables, and the results still stand. If you look at the code in the section How to build n-body-gravity algorithm you will see how unambiguous and clear the logic of the computational process is.

 I really struggle to explain in words why those tiny amounts in the Z-axis of the 3D model have a much larger than intuitively expected effect. So if you really care to dispute this without building a 2D and a 3D model yourself, then you are guilty of the science-of-the-gaps. Your guesses, theories, and assumptions are not mathematical, certainly not computational; nor evolutionary. Any effect to the perihelion and aphelion of Venus will be accentuated by her circular nature, that is for certain. So the circular nature of her orbit not only increases the precession and recession of perihelion and aphelion, but it also radically exaggerates the effect of omitting the Z-axis in the 2D model. So it is also vital to realize that gravity is not simply an additive sum. So  although I cannot give an exact answer to the question of what Venus' average fluctuations are, I have easily shown that it is meaningless to claim any observational average to her moody swings. She is anything but an average lady. And I have also shown that using a flat 2D process is radically inaccurate, and tells us nothing about her mysterious and elusive qualities. Only a fully rounded 3D model can describe the curves in the shapes that she embodies.