Immanuel Velikovsky, in his Worlds in Collision book, asks questions:
- If everything in our solar system has always been like Netwonian clockwork, so harmonious?
- Was our solar system always basically the same?
- Why are the planets and moons physical properties so different?
The celestial harmony is composed of bodies different in size, different in form, different in the velocity of rotation, with differently directed axes of rotation, with different directions of rotation, with differently composed atmospheres or without atmospheres, with a varying number of moons or without moons, and with satellites revolving in either direction.
Immanuel Velikovsky quote from Worlds in Collision
The theories about the chaotic nature of our solar systems planets has been quickly looked at in the initial part of the Velikovsky Worlds in Collision review/investigation. This seems to show that science is increasingly going towards space bodies and planets or worlds colliding but, as we will find out, not in the same time scale or as recent as Velikovsky's comparative mythology suggests.
Science theory again seems to be migrating towards Velikovsky's ideas, this time of planets orbits changing and our solar system not having been or is harmonious.
Ultra late-stage planet migration
The theory of planetary migration and late-stage planet migration is now also gaining ground. It is needed to explain the order of planets in our solar system and also for the crazy exoplanets that orbit amazingly close to their own sun/star in other solar systems (gas giant Hot Jupiter's orbiting in under 10 days!). Without planet migration the Nebular hypothesis (solar nebular disk model) can not explain these things and fails.
the Doppler discovery of extrasolar planets orbiting very close to their parent stars has raised a different problem. Many of the planets are so close to their stars (<0.1 AU), and so hot, that they cannot be supposed to have formed where we now observe them. By inference, they could have formed at larger distances (several AU) and then migrated inwards. ... Anyway, migrating planets are now in vogue. We need them to explain some of the dynamical structure we observe in the Kuiper Belt, and we need them to explain the unnervingly close-in planets detected around some other stars. Moving the Orbits of Planets | University of California
The heavily populated mean-motion resonances in the Kuiper belt strongly suggest that the orbits of the planets have migrated. In particular, it has been inferred that Neptune moved outwards by 10 AU or so.
... The mass now in the Kuiper belt (about 0.1 Earth mass or less) is orders of magnitude two small for the KBOs to have grown by binary accretion on timescales short compared to the age of the Solar system.
The Nice Model | University of California
This thinking follows from the recognition that ammonia ices would not be stable at Ceres' current orbit around the Sun. Such ices are rapidly lost above about 100 kelvin (-173C). So, for Ceres to have retained a lot of ammonia or nitrogen-rich ices, for long enough to be incorporated into the clays, it probably had to occupy a much colder location sometime in its past, argues the Dawn researcher.
"It's an amazing suggestion but there are dynamical models for the evolution of the Solar System that foresee bodies migrating inwards," she told BBC News.
Explanation for Ceres' mystery bright spots
Immanuel Velikovsky, later in the book, suggests a very much shorter time period for his Worlds in Collision version of planet migration, you might even call it ultra late-stage planet migration.
Jumping Jupiter scenario
The jumping-Jupiter scenario specifies an evolution of giant-planet migration described by the Nice model, in which an ice giant (Uranus, Neptune, or an additional Neptune-mass planet) encounters first Saturn and then Jupiter, causing the step-wise separation of their orbits.
Jumping-Jupiter scenario | Wikipedia
The orbit of Mercury has large values of eccentricity and inclination that cannot be easily explained if this planet formed on a circular and coplanar orbit. Here, we study the evolution of Mercury’s orbit during the in stability related to the migration of the giant planets in the framework of the jumping Jupiter model. We found that some instability models are able to produce the
correct values of Mercury’s eccentricity and inclination, provided that relativistic effects are included in the precession of Mercury’s perihelion. The orbital excitation is driven by the fast change of the normal oscillation modes of the system corresponding to the perihelion precession of Jupiter (for the eccentricity), and the nodal regression of Uranus (for the inclination).
Jumping Jupiter can explain Mercury’s orbit (direct link to pdf)
Worlds in migration collision
Planetary formation has always been considered in very long time scales, such as hundreds of millions of years or a billions years. Although just a mathematical model a research paper has suggested a worlds in collision merger producing a planet within a few million years.
The large number of exoplanets found to orbit their host stars in very close orbits have significantly advanced our understanding of the planetary formation process. It is now widely accepted that such short-period planets cannot have formed in situ, but rather must have migrated to their current orbits from a formation location much farther from their host star. In the late stages of planetary formation, once the gas in the protoplanetary disk has dissipated and migration has halted, gas giants orbiting in the inner disk regions will excite planetesimals and planetary embryos, resulting in an increased rate of orbital crossings and large impacts. We present the results of dynamical simulations for planetesimal evolution in this later stage of planet formation. We find that a mechanism is revealed by which the collision-merger of planetary embryos can kick terrestrial planets directly into orbits extremely close to their parent stars.
... It is believed that such short-period gas giants cannot have formed this close to their parent stars, and so must have migrated in, or been scattered in, from a more distant formation region
... In all these scenarios, the formation of short-period Earth-like planets is associated with the migration of gas-giant planets.
... we present a potential new formation mechanism for short-period Earth-like planets in the late stage of planet formation through a collision–merger scenario. In this mechanism, a planetary embryo is directly kicked to a close-in orbit after a collision with another embryo, and then the larger merged body is seized by the central star as a hot Earth-like planet.
... We have uncovered a new mechanism for producing short-period terrestrial planets via collisions-mergers in the late stages of planetary formation. In this mechanism, two highly eccentric bodies first undergo a severe orbital crossing and then form a short-period planet via collision–merger ... it is worth noting that close-in planets emerge from our simulations within a few million years. This is a significantly shorter timescale than the billion years over which the solar system is thought to have undergone significant evolution.
Forming close-in earth-like planets via a collision-merger mechanism in late-stage planet formation
The Thunderbolts Electric Universe theory and other EU theory variations of our solar system formation agree with Velikovsky that the solar system has not always been in celestial harmony, that planets migrate.
The other points raised Immanuel Velikovsky will be investigated in other following posts.