Building a Computational Model of Planetary Motion (NKTg) and Validating It with NASA Mercury Data

1. Problem Statement

Can planetary motion be simulated using only fundamental quantities such as:

  • Position (x)

  • Velocity (v)

  • Mass (m)

without explicitly using force equations?

This post presents a computational implementation of the NKTg model, where orbital velocity is derived from a target constant:

NKTg₁ = x × p
where p = m × v

The model is validated using publicly available data from NASA JPL Horizons for Mercury.


2. Reference Dataset (NASA 2024)

Actual orbital data of Mercury in 2024:

Date x (m) v (m/s) m (kg) p = m·v
1/1/2024 5.16E+10 5.33E+04 3.30E+23 1.76E+28
4/1/2024 6.97E+10 3.90E+04 3.30E+23 1.29E+28
7/1/2024 5.36E+10 5.20E+04 3.30E+23 1.72E+28
10/1/2024 6.95E+10 3.92E+04 3.30E+23 1.30E+28
12/31/2024 4.64E+10 5.81E+04 3.30E+23 1.92E+28

From this dataset, the target constant is established:

NKTg₁ = 8.90E+38 NKTm


3. Model Definition

Given:

  • x (orbital position)

  • m (mass)

  • Target constant NKTg₁

We compute:

p=NKTg1xp = \frac{NKTg₁}{x}p=xNKTg1​​v=pmv = \frac{p}{m}v=mp​

No force expressions are used in the computation.

The model also integrates mass variation:

dm/dt = -0.5 kg/s

This produces:

NKTg2=(dm/dt)×pNKTg₂ = (dm/dt) × pNKTg2​=(dm/dt)×p

which remains negative throughout the orbit.


4. 2025 Simulation (NKTg Model)

Date x (m) v (m/s) m (kg) p = m·v
1/1/2025 5.16E+10 5.22E+04 3.301E+23 1.72E+28
4/1/2025 6.97E+10 3.87E+04 3.301E+23 1.28E+28
7/1/2025 5.49E+10 4.91E+04 3.301E+23 1.62E+28
10/1/2025 6.83E+10 3.95E+04 3.301E+23 1.30E+28
12/31/2025 4.61E+10 5.85E+04 3.301E+23 1.93E+28

5. Actual NASA Data (2025)

Date x (m) v (m/s) m (kg)
1/1/2025 5.16E+10 5.34E+04 3.30E+23
4/1/2025 6.97E+10 3.89E+04 3.30E+23
7/1/2025 5.49E+10 5.04E+04 3.30E+23
1/10/2025 6.83E+10 3.98E+04 3.30E+23
12/31/2025 4.61E+10 5.89E+04 3.30E+23

6. Numerical Comparison

Date v – NKTg v – NASA Relative Error (%)
1/1/2025 5.22E+04 53400 -2.15461
4/1/2025 3.87E+04 38900 -0.562786
7/1/2025 4.91E+04 50400 -2.561981
1/10/2025 3.95E+04 39800 -0.819213
12/31/2025 5.85E+04 58900 -0.707806

Average relative error: 1.3%


7. Observations from a Computational Perspective

  • The system is fully defined by interaction between x, v, and m.

  • No force expressions are required in the computation process.

  • The model is deterministic and reproducible across platforms.

  • Error remains within ~1.3% compared to NASA JPL data.


8. Discussion

From a software engineering perspective, this approach represents:

  • A constant-driven orbital simulation model.

  • A reduced-parameter dynamical system.

  • A reproducible computational experiment based on publicly available data.

The implementation can be reproduced in any language supporting floating-point arithmetic.


If anyone is interested, I can share a minimal reproducible implementation (Python / C++ / Go) for benchmarking and independent validation.