THE MAIN CAUSE OF
ALL SOLAR SYSTEM INSTABILITY

by Miles Mathis
milesmathis.com
email:mm@milesmathis.com

In my Laplace paper, I began to discuss the asteroid belt, but moved on to avoid digressing from the main thesis there. I will now return to that discussion. Although it had never occurred to me before, my research on the resonance between Jupiter and Saturn led me to see that resonance as the main danger to the Solar System in future. Because Saturn and Jupiter are currently moving apart very slowly, the danger has not been seen before. But over the long term, a moving apart must imply a moving together. A resonance is a cycle, and at some point in the future Jupiter and Saturn must come back together.

This should have been obvious at a first glance at the Solar System, to anyone who understood Celestial Mechanics. Unfortunately, few or none have fit that description. But if we imagine some alien passing our system in a cosmic joyride, he would see the danger immediately.

Why? Because in our system, we have smaller planets orbiting beyond larger planets. That is unstable by itself.

We humans have so far missed that fact, because we have tried to build our system on gravity alone. According to gravity, size doesn't make any difference. According to Newton's and Kepler's equations, an orbit is not determined by the size of the orbiter. It is determined only by the speed of the orbiter. Notice that the equation a = v2/r has no mass in it. According to current equations, you could take the Earth out to the distance of Jupiter, give it the same orbital velocity as Jupiter, and it could inhabit the same orbit indefinitely. The Sun would not pull it higher or lower. Size and mass make no difference to the orbit.

The problem is, Newton's and Kepler's equations always contained the E/M field, and size does matter to the E/M field. But since the E/M field was hidden in the equations, we didn't know that. Up to now, we thought that G was just an anonymous constant. We didn't know that G was a scaling constant, hiding the E/M field.

Both mass and radius matter in the E/M field, because the E/M field is emitted by mass and felt by mass. It is a straight bombarding field, at the foundational level, so size matters.

This explains Saturn wanting to go below Jupiter. Saturn feels less E/M repulsion from the Sun than Jupiter, so it wants to go below Jupiter. In a long, slow fall, it begins to do so.* But Jupiter blocks it. Because the fall is slow, there is time for Jupiter to come between. At a crucial point in the fall, the orbits collide. If Saturn is precisely even with Jupiter at collision, they actually hit, and pandemonium ensues. If Saturn is slightly higher than Jupiter at collision, the E/M fields of the two bodies bounce them apart, starting the resonance. This is what actually happened. It was also possible that Saturn could have been slightly lower than Jupiter at collision, in which case Saturn would have been bounced into the inner Solar System, either eventually achieving the stable orbit it desired, or being bounced too low and coming into contact with inner planets.

It may be that I have reversed this motion. It may be Jupiter that wants to go higher, rather than Saturn that wants to go lower. Evidence for this is that Saturn, like the Earth, is already near optical equivalence. In other words, Mercury, the Earth, and Saturn all look the same size, from the Sun. This is easy to calculate and is known. This would imply that they are near their optimal orbital distances. If that is the case, then Jupiter, seeking optical equivalence to the other planets, would want to go above Saturn. A completely stable system would be one where larger planets are always further away, and where all the planets looked the same size from the Sun. But only very old systems or very lucky systems would be expected to fit this model.

Even though Saturn is still in the bounce part of its resonance, it will want to go below Jupiter again. It will keep trying until it does so or is destroyed in the process.

The same analysis applies to Uranus and Neptune. They both want to be below Jupiter. Both Jupiter and Saturn repulse them, providing more stability than Saturn has, but we must assume that in the long term they will continue to seek lower orbits. As Saturn's rings are a sign of instability and prior collision, Uranus' rings must be seen in the same light. Uranus would not be threatened by Neptune, since Neptune is more massive, so we must assume that Uranus and Saturn have had close passes in the past.

This also applies to Mars. Mars' orbit should be deteriorating very slowly, unless it is in the bounce phase of a resonance like Saturn. This is because it should want to go below the Earth. It should also want to go below Venus. Given the asteroid belt, the best first hypothesis is that Mars entered the system just below Jupiter. In going below the planet below Jupiter, it destroyed it. This means that the planet below Jupiter, which became the asteroid belt, was originally larger than Mars. How then could Mars destroy it? No, we are forced to a second hypothesis. To destroy this planet, Mars must have been bigger, which means it must have been coming from below. To come from below, it must have been in the bounce part of a resonance with the Earth. Which means Mars may have been the cause of terrestrial catastrophes in the past.

Regardless of what may or may not have happened in the past, it is certain that Mars remains a danger to us. Its orbit has a high eccentricity, which is increasing. This would be a red flag even if Mars' orbit weren't deteriorating. Due to the basic equations of motion, Mars must want to go below the Earth, and at some point and in some manner it will attempt to do so, either with eccentricity or with a resonance.

But I am not here to propose celestial models to match historical accounts. I am here only to show that, using the simple mathematical corrections I have made to Newton's and Kepler's equations, the current system must be highly unstable. We still have many smaller planets above larger planets, and this cannot create stable orbits. It appears to me that danger in these resonances is a matter of millions of years, which would confirm neither the billion year estimates of the standard model nor the few thousand year estimates of Velikovsky and others, but I have not actually applied my corrected equations to the data, so I am not prepared to make any firm predictions at this time.

One thing I can say for certain is that my new unified field equations are less catastrophic than the straight gravitational equations in an important way: my equations allow planets to repel eachother strongly in near passes. The E/M field part of the unified field increases quickly in near approach, keeping the chance of an actual hit very low, especially between large objects. So while my new equations greatly increase the odds of approach, they greatly decrease the odds of collision. Using gravity alone, as in the current models, would guarantee collision in almost all approaches, since gravity increases with decreasing distance. This is one of the many facts the current model fails to address. Given the current math, any resonance would be the precursor to an almost certain collision. Since the current model has many more resonances than it has collisions, it is immediately contradictory.

This paper has only been a sort of pre-announcement of a finding, like the astronomers used to do in Galileo's time, but I will not put it into Latin or an anagram. Until I actually correct Laplace's equations with my unified field equations, I will not have the full mathematical proof to back up my finding. But my corrections to Newton's and Kepler's main equations give me pretty firm footing nonetheless. Those who want to dismiss this paper as groundless theorizing had better familiarize them with my other papers. My unified field is categorically different than any failed field theories of the recent past, or than any Long Range Modified Gravity theories that are floating around now. My field is fully mechanically grounded, and it comes directly out of my analysis of Newton's gravity equation. All variables and forces and motions are assigned, and no slippery math is used. Although it is in its early stages, I already have confirmation of it from many sources of data, past and present; and I have made many predictions that will be easy to confirm or refute. I have not set up in some data hole.

In fact, I would bet Stephen Hawking my last pair of pants and my favorite plush toy that the E/M field is already in Newton's gravity equation. To my critics and debunkers, I ask only one question: if I am wrong, what it is that causes Jupiter and Saturn to move apart after the closest part of their resonance, and keeps the close pass from becoming a collision? Show me how gravity can cause a resonance, by itself.

*The fall is slow because Saturn is also being repulsed by Jupiter. Jupiter sends it higher; the Sun, Uranus, and Neptune send it lower. But the latter effects outweigh the former. This would be even more true in the case that Jupiter is trying to go higher. Nothing in the Solar System can prevent Jupiter from going where it wants to go (except a very close pass from Saturn, and then only temporarily).

If this paper was useful to you in any way, please consider donating a dollar (or more) to the SAVE THE ARTISTS FOUNDATION. This will allow me to continue writing these "unpublishable" things. Don't be confused by paying Melisa Smith--that is just one of my many noms de plume. If you are a Paypal user, there is no fee; so it might be worth your while to become one. Otherwise they will rob us 33 cents for each transaction.