There's a lesson here. This latest simulation from planetary formation 'computer models' yields a solution diametrically opposed to other recent computer model simulations. These models are basically Newtonian but do have some other variables.

This is real science in action, ambiguity with conflicting results. Contrast this pure science situation with climate science where researchers stridently claim near infallibility with "settled science", simulating climate where there are far more variables with more complex interactions than simple Newtonian physics, basic chemistry and stellar radiation in the planetary models. Plus admitedly in climate models, major variables like cloud cover and sometimes water vapor are either omitted or empirical values assigned.