I see your analyses as a fascinating devil's advocate challenge to popular conventional thought about planet formation in our solar system. Similar analyses may well underlie actual experimental tests--or even ongoing projects like Rosetta.
However, meaningful possibilities must be subject to measurements supported by experimental testing: the real devil is in the details. It is here that Velikovsky founders--not that he is alone. As pointed out by Duane in this thread, some conventional models of planet formation adapted specifically to challenge Velikovsky also turn out to be inconsistent with more detailed measurements. Bring on the next generation of scientists.
It is this next generation of scientists that need to find ways to take us to the next level that new observations allow.