# Titius–Bode law

Last updated

The Titius–Bode law (sometimes termed simply Bode's law) is a formulaic prediction of spacing between planets in any given planetary system. The formula suggests that, extending outward, each planet should be approximately twice as far from the Sun as the one before. The hypothesis correctly anticipated the orbits of Ceres (in the asteroid belt) and Uranus, but failed as a predictor of Neptune's orbit. It is named after Johann Daniel Titius and Johann Elert Bode.

## Contents

Later work by Blagg and Richardson significantly revised the original formula, and made predictions that were subsequently validated by new discoveries and observations. It is these re-formulations that offer "the best phenomenological representations of distances with which to investigate the theoretical significance of Titius–Bode type Laws". [1]

## Original formulation

The law relates the semi-major axis ${\displaystyle ~a_{n}~}$ of each planet outward from the Sun in units such that the Earth's semi-major axis is equal to 10:

${\displaystyle ~a=4+x~}$

where ${\displaystyle ~x=0,3,6,12,24,48,96,192,384,768\ldots ~}$ such that, with the exception of the first step, each value is twice the previous value. There is another representation of the formula:

${\displaystyle ~a=4+3\times 2^{n}~}$

where ${\displaystyle ~n=-\infty ,0,1,2,\ldots ~.}$ The resulting values can be divided by 10 to convert them into astronomical units (AU), resulting in the expression:

${\displaystyle a=0.4+0.3\times 2^{n}~.}$

For the far outer planets, beyond Saturn, each planet is predicted to be roughly twice as far from the Sun as the previous object. Whereas the Titius–Bode law predicts Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto at about 10, 20, 39, and 77  AU, the actual values are closer to 10, 19, 30, 40  AU. [lower-alpha 1]

## Origin and history

The first mention of a series approximating Bode's law is found in a textbook by D. Gregory (1715): [2]

"... supposing the distance of the Earth from the Sun to be divided into ten equal Parts, of these the distance of Mercury will be about four, of Venus seven, of Mars fifteen, of Jupiter fifty two, and that of Saturn ninety five." [3]

A similar sentence, likely paraphrased from Gregory (1715), [2] [3] appears in a work published by C. Wolff in 1724.

In 1764, C. Bonnet wrote: [4]

"We know seventeen planets [that is, major planets and their satellites] that enter into the composition of our solar system; but we are not sure that there are no more." [4] [3]

In his 1766 translation of Bonnet's work, J.D. Titius added two of his own paragraphs to the statement above. The insertions were placed at the bottom of page 7 and at the top of page 8. The new paragraph is not in Bonnet's original French text, nor in translations of the work into Italian and English.

There are two parts to Titius's inserted text. The first part explains the succession of planetary distances from the Sun:

Take notice of the distances of the planets from one another, and recognize that almost all are separated from one another in a proportion which matches their bodily magnitudes. Divide the distance from the Sun to Saturn into 100 parts; then Mercury is separated by four such parts from the Sun, Venus by 4+3=7 such parts, the Earth by 4+6=10, Mars by 4+12=16. But notice that from Mars to Jupiter there comes a deviation from this so exact progression. From Mars there follows a space of 4+24=28 such parts, but so far no planet was sighted there. But should the Lord Architect have left that space empty? Not at all. Let us therefore assume that this space without doubt belongs to the still undiscovered satellites of Mars, let us also add that perhaps Jupiter still has around itself some smaller ones which have not been sighted yet by any telescope. Next to this for us still unexplored space there rises Jupiter's sphere of influence at 4+48=52 parts; and that of Saturn at 4+96=100 parts.[ citation needed ]

In 1772, J.E. Bode, then aged twenty-five, published an astronomical compendium, [5] in which he included the following footnote, citing Titius (in later editions): [lower-alpha 2] [6]

This latter point seems in particular to follow from the astonishing relation which the known six planets observe in their distances from the Sun. Let the distance from the Sun to Saturn be taken as 100, then Mercury is separated by 4 such parts from the Sun. Venus is 4+3=7. The Earth 4+6=10. Mars 4+12=16. Now comes a gap in this so orderly progression. After Mars there follows a space of 4+24=28 parts, in which no planet has yet been seen. Can one believe that the Founder of the universe had left this space empty? Certainly not. From here we come to the distance of Jupiter by 4+48=52 parts, and finally to that of Saturn by 4+96=100 parts. [6]

These two statements, for all their peculiar expression, and from the radii used for the orbits, seem to stem from an antique algorithm by a cossist. [lower-alpha 3]

Many precedents were found that predate the seventeenth century.[ citation needed ] Titius was a disciple of the German philosopher C.F. von Wolf (1679–1754), and the second part of the text that Titius inserted into Bonnet's work is in a book by von Wolf (1723), [7] suggesting that Titius learned the relation from him. Twentieth-century literature about Titius–Bode law attributes authorship to von Wolf.[ citation needed ] A prior version was written by D. Gregory (1702), [8] in which the succession of planetary distances 4, 7, 10, 16, 52, and 100 became a geometric progression with ratio 2. This is the nearest Newtonian formula, which was also cited by Benjamin Martin (1747) [9] and Tomàs Cerdà (c. 1760) [10] years before Titius's expanded translation of Bonnet's book into German (1766). Over the next two centuries, subsequent authors continued to present their own modified versions, apparently unaware of prior work. [1]

Titius and Bode hoped that the law would lead to the discovery of new planets, and indeed the discovery of Uranus and Ceres – both of whose distances fit well with the law – contributed to the law's fame. Neptune's distance was very discrepant, however, and indeed Pluto – no longer considered a planet – is at a mean distance that roughly corresponds to that the Titius–Bode law predicted for the next planet out from Uranus.

When originally published, the law was approximately satisfied by all the planets then known – i.e., Mercury through Saturn – with a gap between the fourth and fifth planets. Vikarius (Johann Friedrich) Wurm (1787) proposed a modified version of the Titius–Bode Law that accounted for the then-known satellites of Jupiter and Saturn, and better predicted the distance for Mercury. [11]

The Titius–Bode law was regarded as interesting, but of no great importance until the discovery of Uranus in 1781, which happens to fit into the series nearly exactly. Based on this discovery, Bode urged his contemporaries to search for a fifth planet. Ceres, the largest object in the asteroid belt, was found at Bode's predicted position in 1801.

Bode's law was widely accepted at that point, until in 1846 Neptune was discovered in a location that does not conform to the law. Simultaneously, due to the large number of asteroids discovered in the belt, Ceres was no longer a major planet. In 1898 the astronomer and logician C.S. Peirce used Bode's law as an example of fallacious reasoning. [12]

The discovery of Pluto in 1930 confounded the issue still further: Although nowhere near its predicted position according to Bode's law, it was very nearly at the position the law had designated for Neptune. The subsequent discovery of the Kuiper belt – and in particular the object Eris, which is more massive than Pluto, yet does not fit Bode's law – further discredited the formula. [13]

## Data

The Titius–Bode law predicts planets will be present at specific distances in astronomical units, which can be compared to the observed data for the planets and two dwarf planets in the Solar System:

mkT–B rule distance (AU)PlanetSemimajor axis (AU)Deviation from prediction1
${\displaystyle -\infty }$00.4 Mercury 0.39−3.23%
010.7 Venus 0.72+3.33%
121.0 Earth 1.000.00%
241.6 Mars 1.52−4.77%
382.8 Ceres 22.77−1.16%
4165.2 Jupiter 5.20+0.05%
53210.0 Saturn 9.58−4.42%
66419.6 Uranus 19.22−1.95%
Neptune 30.07
712838.8 Pluto 239.48+1.02%
1 For large k, each Titius–Bode rule distance is approximately twice the preceding value. Hence, an arbitrary planet may be found within −25% to +50% of one of the predicted positions. For small k, the predicted distances do not fully double, so the range of potential deviation is smaller. Note that the semi-major axis is proportional to the 2/3 power of the orbital period. For example, planets in a 2:3 orbital resonance (such as plutinos relative to Neptune) will vary in distance by (2/3)2/3 = −23.69% and +31.04% relative to one another.
2 Ceres and Pluto are dwarf planets rather than major planets.

## Blagg formulation

In 1913, M.A. Blagg, an Oxford astronomer, re-visited the law. [14] She analyzed the orbits of the planetary system and those of the satellite systems of the outer gas giants, Jupiter, Saturn and Uranus. She examined the log of the distances, trying to find the best 'average' difference.

Her analysis resulted in a different formula:

${\displaystyle \ {\mathsf {distance}}=A\cdot {\bigl [}\ B+f\left(\alpha +n\ \beta \right)\ {\bigr ]}\ {\bigl (}\ 1.7275\ {\bigr )}^{n}~.}$

Note in particular that in Blagg's formula, the law for the Solar System was best represented by a progression in 1.7275, rather than the original value 2 used by Titius, Bode, and others.

Blagg examined the satellite system of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus, and discovered the same progression ratio 1.7275, in each.

However, the final form of the correction function f was not given in Blagg's 1913 paper, with Blagg noting that the empirical figures given were only for illustration. The empirical form was provided in the form of a graph (the reason that points on the curve are such a close match for empirical data, for objects discovered prior to 1913, is that they are the empirical data).

Finding a formula that closely fit the empircal curve turned out to be difficult. Fourier analysis of the shape resulted in the following seven term approximation: [14]

${\displaystyle \ f{\bigl (}\ \theta \ {\bigr )}\;=\;0.4594\;+\;0.396\ \cos \!{\bigl (}\ \theta -27.4^{\circ }\ {\bigr )}\;+\;0.168\ \cos \!{\bigl (}\ 2\ (\ \theta -60.4^{\circ })\ {\bigr )}\;+\;0.062\ \cos \!{\bigl (}\ 3\ (\ \theta -28.1^{\circ })\ {\bigr )}\;+\;0.053\ \cos \!{\bigl (}\ 4\ (\ \theta -77.2^{\circ })\ {\bigr )}\;+\;0.009\ \cos \!{\bigl (}\ 5\ (\ \theta -22^{\circ })\ {\bigr )}\;+\;0.012\ \cos \!{\bigl (}\ 7\ (\ \theta -40.4^{\circ })\ {\bigr )}~.}$

After further analysis, Blagg gave the following simpler formula; however the price for the simpler form is that it produces a less accurate fit to the empirical data. Blagg gave it in an un-normalized form in her paper, which leaves the relative sizes of A, B, and f ambiguous; it is shown here in normalized form (i.e. this version of f is scaled to produce values ranging from 0 to 1, inclusive): [15]

${\displaystyle \ f{\bigl (}\ \theta \ {\bigr )}\;=\;0.249\;+\;0.860\ \left({\frac {\ \cos \ \Psi \ }{\ 3-\cos \!\left(\ 2\Psi \ \right)\ }}\;+\;{\frac {1}{\ 6-4\ \cos \!\left(\ 2\ \Psi -60^{\circ }\right)\ }}\right)\ ,}$

where ${\displaystyle \ \Psi \equiv \theta -27.5^{\circ }~.}$

Neither of these formulas for function f are used in the calculations below: The calculations here are based on a graph of function f which was drawn based on observed data.

Constants for Blagg's refinement of the Titius–Bode law
(as modified by Nieto 1970)
SystemABαβ
Sun-orbiting bodies 0.4162 2.025 112.4° 56.6°
Moons of Jupiter 0.4523 1.852 113.0°36.0°
Moons of Saturn 3.074 0.0071 118.0°10.0°
Moons of Uranus 2.98 0.0805 125.7°12.5°

Her paper was pulished in 1913, and was forgotten until 1953, when A.E. Roy came across it while researching another problem. [16] Roy noted that Blagg herself had suggested that her formula could give approximate mean distances of other bodies still undiscovered in 1913. Since then, six bodies in three systems examined by Blagg had been discovered: Pluto, Sinope (Jupiter IX), Lysithea (J X), Carme (J XI), Ananke (J XII), and Miranda (Uranus V).

Roy found that all six fitted very closely. This might have been an exaggeration: out of these six bodies, four were sharing positions with objects that were already known in 1913; concerning the two others, there was a ~6% overestimate for Pluto; and later, a 6% underestimate for Miranda became apparent. [15]

### Comparison of the Blagg formulation with observation

Bodies in parentheses were not known in 1913, when Blagg wrote her paper. Some of the calculated distances in the Saturn and Uranus systems are not very accurate. This is because the low values of constant B in the table above make them very sensitive to the exact form of the function f.

Sun-orbiting bodies
Planet / minor pl. nobs. dist.Blagg pred.
Mercury −20.3870.387
Venus −10.7230.723
Earth 01.0001.000
Mars 11.5241.524
Vesta 22.3622.67
Juno 2.670
Pallas 2.774
Ceres 2.769
Jupiter 35.2045.200
Saturn 49.5839.550
Uranus 519.2219.23
Neptune 630.0730.13
(Pluto) 7(39.48)41.8
Moons of Jupiter
Jupiter satellite nobs. dist.Blagg pred.
Amalthea −20.4290.429
−1
0.708
Io 01.0001.000
Europa 11.5921.592
Ganymede 22.5392.541
Callisto 34.4674.467
4
9.26
5
15.4
Himalia 627.2527.54
Elara 27.85
(Lysithea)(27.85)
(Ananke)7(49.8)55.46
(Carme)(53.3)
Pasiphae 55.7
(Sinope)(56.2)
Moons of Saturn
Saturn satellite nobs. dist.Blagg pred.
(Janus)−3(0.538)0.54
Mimas −20.6300.629
Tethys 01.0001.000
Dione 11.2811.279
Rhea 21.7891.786
3
2.97
Titan 44.1494.140
Hyperion 55.0345.023
6
6.3
7
6.65
8
7.00
Iapetus 912.0912.11
Phoebe 1043.9243.85
Moons of Uranus
Uranus satellite nobs. dist.Blagg pred.
(Miranda)−2(0.678)0.64
−1
0.77
Ariel 01.0001.000
Umbriel 11.3941.393
Titania 22.2932.286
Oberon 33.0583.055

## Richardson formulation

In a 1945 magazine article, [17] the science writer D.E. Richardson apparently independently arrived at the same conclusion as Blagg: That the progression ratio is 1.728 rather than 2. His spacing law is in the form:

${\displaystyle \ R_{n}={\bigl (}\ 1.728\ {\bigr )}^{n}\ \varrho _{n}(\theta _{n})\ ,}$

where ${\displaystyle \ \varrho _{n}\ }$ is an oscillatory function with period ${\displaystyle \ 2\ \pi \ ,}$ representing distances ${\displaystyle \ \varrho _{n}\ }$ from an off-centered origin to points on an ellipse.

## Historical inertia

Nieto, who conducted the first modern comprehensive review of the Titius–Bode Law, [18] noted that "The psychological hold of the Law on astronomy has been such that people have always tended to regard its original form as the one on which to base theories." He was emphatic that "future theories must rid themselves of the bias of trying to explain a progression ratio of 2":

One thing which needs to be emphasized is that the historical bias towards a progression ratio of 2 must be abandoned. It ought to be clear that the first formulation of Titius (with its asymmetric first term) should be viewed as a good first guess. Certainly, it should not necessarily be viewed as the best guess to refer theories to. But in astronomy the weight of history is heavy ... Despite the fact that the number 1.73 is much better, astronomers cling to the original number 2. [1]

## Theoretical explanations

No solid theoretical explanation underlies the Titius–Bode law – but it is possible that, given a combination of orbital resonance and shortage of degrees of freedom, any stable planetary system has a high probability of satisfying a Titius–Bode-type relationship. Since it may be a mathematical coincidence rather than a "law of nature", it is sometimes referred to as a rule instead of "law". [19] Astrophysicist Alan Boss states that it is just a coincidence, and the planetary science journal Icarus no longer accepts papers attempting to provide improved versions of the "law". [13]

Orbital resonance from major orbiting bodies creates regions around the Sun that are free of long-term stable orbits. Results from simulations of planetary formation support the idea that a randomly chosen, stable planetary system will likely satisfy a Titius–Bode law. [20]

Dubrulle and Graner [21] [22] showed that power-law distance rules can be a consequence of collapsing-cloud models of planetary systems possessing two symmetries: rotational invariance (i.e., the cloud and its contents are axially symmetric) and scale invariance (i.e., the cloud and its contents look the same on all scales). The latter is a feature of many phenomena considered to play a role in planetary formation, such as turbulence.

### Natural satellite systems and exoplanetary systems

Only a limited number of systems are available upon which Bode's law can presently be tested; two solar planets have enough large moons, that probably formed in a process similar to that which formed the planets: The four large satellites of Jupiter and the biggest inner satellite (i.e., Amalthea) cling to a regular, but non-Titius-Bode, spacing, with the four innermost satellites locked into orbital periods that are each twice that of the next inner satellite. Similarly, the large moons of Uranus have a regular but non-Titius-Bode spacing. [23] However, according to Martin Harwit

"a slight new phrasing of this law permits us to include not only planetary orbits around the Sun, but also the orbits of moons around their parent planets." [24]

The new phrasing is known as “Dermott's law”.

Of the recent discoveries of extrasolar planetary systems, few have enough known planets to test whether similar rules apply. An attempt with 55 Cancri suggested the equation

${\displaystyle ~a_{n}=0.0142\cdot \mathrm {e} ^{\left(\,0.9975\,n\,\right)}=0.0142\cdot {\bigl (}\,2.7115\,{\bigr )}^{n}~,}$

and controversially [25] predicts an undiscovered planet or asteroid field for ${\displaystyle ~n=5~}$ at 2  AU. [26] Furthermore, the orbital period and semi-major axis of the innermost planet in the 55 Cancri system have been greatly revised (from 2.817 days to 0.737 days and from 0.038  AU to 0.016 AU, respectively) since the publication of these studies. [27]

Recent astronomical research suggests that planetary systems around some other stars may follow Titius-Bode-like laws. [28] [29] Bovaird & Lineweaver (2013) [30] applied a generalized Titius-Bode relation to 68 exoplanet systems that contain four or more planets. They showed that 96% of these exoplanet systems adhere to a generalized Titius-Bode relation to a similar or greater extent than the Solar System does. The locations of potentially undetected exoplanets are predicted in each system. [30]

Subsequent research detected 5 candidate planets from the 97 planets predicted for the 68 planetary systems. The study showed that the actual number of planets could be larger. The occurrence rates of Mars- and Mercury-sized planets are currently unknown, so many planets could be missed due to their small size. Other possible reasons that may account for apparent discrepancies include planets that do not transit the star or circumstances in which the predicted space is occupied by circumstellar disks. Despite these types of allowances, the number of planets found with Titius–Bode law predictions was lower than expected. [31]

In a 2018 paper, the idea of a hypothetical eighth planet around TRAPPIST-1 named "TRAPPIST‑1i", was proposed by using the Titius–Bode law. TRAPPIST‑1i had a prediction based exclusively on the Titius–Bode law with an orbital period of 27.53 ± 0.83 days. [32]

Finally, raw statistics from exoplanetary orbits strongly point to a general fulfillment of Titius-Bode-like laws (with exponential increase of semi-major axes as a function of planetary index) in all the exoplanetary systems; when making a blind histogram of orbital semi-major axes for all the known exoplanets for which this magnitude is known, and comparing it with what should be expected if planets distribute according to Titius-Bode-like laws, a significant degree of agreement (i.e., 78%) [33] is obtained. [34]

## Footnotes

1. The spacing seems to transition from the complicated Titius–series to simple equal-spacing starting at Saturn, with Neptune being the first major planet that does not fit the Titius–Bode rule.
2. Bode's footnote was initially unsourced, but in later versions credited to Titius, and in Bode’s memoir he refers to Titius, clearly recognizing Titius' priority.
3. The cossists were experts in calculations of all kinds and were employed by merchants and businessmen to solve complex accounting problems. Their name derives from the Italian word cosa, meaning "thing", because they used symbols to represent an unknown quantity, similar to the way modern mathematicians use ${\displaystyle \,x\;.}$ Professional problem-solvers of this era invented their own clever methods for performing calculations and would do their utmost to keep these methods secret in order to maintain a reputation as the only person capable of solving a particular problem.[ citation needed ]

## Related Research Articles

In mathematics, the arithmetic–geometric mean of two positive real numbers x and y is the mutual limit of a sequence of arithmetic means and a sequence of geometric means. The arithmetic–geometric mean is used in fast algorithms for exponential, trigonometric functions, and other special functions, as well as some mathematical constants, in particular, computing π.

Johann Elert Bode was a German astronomer known for his reformulation and popularisation of the Titius–Bode law. Bode determined the orbit of Uranus and suggested the planet's name.

In astronomy, Kepler's laws of planetary motion, published by Johannes Kepler between 1609 and 1619, describe the orbits of planets around the Sun. The laws modified the heliocentric theory of Nicolaus Copernicus, replacing its circular orbits and epicycles with elliptical trajectories, and explaining how planetary velocities vary. The three laws state that:

1. The orbit of a planet is an ellipse with the Sun at one of the two foci.
2. A line segment joining a planet and the Sun sweeps out equal areas during equal intervals of time.
3. The square of a planet's orbital period is proportional to the cube of the length of the semi-major axis of its orbit.

In celestial mechanics, an orbit is the curved trajectory of an object such as the trajectory of a planet around a star, or of a natural satellite around a planet, or of an artificial satellite around an object or position in space such as a planet, moon, asteroid, or Lagrange point. Normally, orbit refers to a regularly repeating trajectory, although it may also refer to a non-repeating trajectory. To a close approximation, planets and satellites follow elliptic orbits, with the center of mass being orbited at a focal point of the ellipse, as described by Kepler's laws of planetary motion.

Rotation or rotational motion is the circular movement of an object around a central line, known as axis of rotation. A plane figure can rotate in either a clockwise or counterclockwise sense around a perpendicular axis intersecting anywhere inside or outside the figure at a center of rotation. A solid figure has an infinite number of possible axes and angles of rotation, including chaotic rotation, in contrast to rotation around a fixed axis.

In mathematics, Legendre polynomials, named after Adrien-Marie Legendre (1782), are a system of complete and orthogonal polynomials with a vast number of mathematical properties and numerous applications. They can be defined in many ways, and the various definitions highlight different aspects as well as suggest generalizations and connections to different mathematical structures and physical and numerical applications.

Orbital mechanics or astrodynamics is the application of ballistics and celestial mechanics to the practical problems concerning the motion of rockets, satellites, and other spacecraft. The motion of these objects is usually calculated from Newton's laws of motion and the law of universal gravitation. Orbital mechanics is a core discipline within space-mission design and control.

A trajectory or flight path is the path that an object with mass in motion follows through space as a function of time. In classical mechanics, a trajectory is defined by Hamiltonian mechanics via canonical coordinates; hence, a complete trajectory is defined by position and momentum, simultaneously.

In mathematics, theta functions are special functions of several complex variables. They show up in many topics, including Abelian varieties, moduli spaces, quadratic forms, and solitons. As Grassmann algebras, they appear in quantum field theory.

In mathematics, the Jacobi elliptic functions are a set of basic elliptic functions. They are found in the description of the motion of a pendulum, as well as in the design of electronic elliptic filters. While trigonometric functions are defined with reference to a circle, the Jacobi elliptic functions are a generalization which refer to other conic sections, the ellipse in particular. The relation to trigonometric functions is contained in the notation, for example, by the matching notation for . The Jacobi elliptic functions are used more often in practical problems than the Weierstrass elliptic functions as they do not require notions of complex analysis to be defined and/or understood. They were introduced by Carl Gustav Jakob Jacobi. Carl Friedrich Gauss had already studied special Jacobi elliptic functions in 1797, the lemniscate elliptic functions in particular, but his work was published much later.

In astrodynamics or celestial mechanics, a hyperbolic trajectory or hyperbolic orbit is the trajectory of any object around a central body with more than enough speed to escape the central object's gravitational pull. The name derives from the fact that according to Newtonian theory such an orbit has the shape of a hyperbola. In more technical terms this can be expressed by the condition that the orbital eccentricity is greater than one.

In mathematics, specifically the theory of elliptic functions, the nome is a special function that belongs to the non-elementary functions. This function is of great importance in the description of the elliptic functions, especially in the description of the modular identity of the Jacobi theta function, the Hermite elliptic transcendents and the Weber modular functions, that are used for solving equations of higher degrees.

The invariable plane of a planetary system, also called Laplace's invariable plane, is the plane passing through its barycenter perpendicular to its angular momentum vector.

In classical mechanics, the Kepler problem is a special case of the two-body problem, in which the two bodies interact by a central force F that varies in strength as the inverse square of the distance r between them. The force may be either attractive or repulsive. The problem is to find the position or speed of the two bodies over time given their masses, positions, and velocities. Using classical mechanics, the solution can be expressed as a Kepler orbit using six orbital elements.

Jitendra Jatashankar Rawal is an Indian astrophysicist and scientific educator, recognized for his work in the popularisation of science.

In classical mechanics, Newton's theorem of revolving orbits identifies the type of central force needed to multiply the angular speed of a particle by a factor k without affecting its radial motion. Newton applied his theorem to understanding the overall rotation of orbits that is observed for the Moon and planets. The term "radial motion" signifies the motion towards or away from the center of force, whereas the angular motion is perpendicular to the radial motion.

In inversive geometry, an inverse curve of a given curve C is the result of applying an inverse operation to C. Specifically, with respect to a fixed circle with center O and radius k the inverse of a point Q is the point P for which P lies on the ray OQ and OP·OQ = k2. The inverse of the curve C is then the locus of P as Q runs over C. The point O in this construction is called the center of inversion, the circle the circle of inversion, and k the radius of inversion.

In celestial mechanics, a Kepler orbit is the motion of one body relative to another, as an ellipse, parabola, or hyperbola, which forms a two-dimensional orbital plane in three-dimensional space. A Kepler orbit can also form a straight line. It considers only the point-like gravitational attraction of two bodies, neglecting perturbations due to gravitational interactions with other objects, atmospheric drag, solar radiation pressure, a non-spherical central body, and so on. It is thus said to be a solution of a special case of the two-body problem, known as the Kepler problem. As a theory in classical mechanics, it also does not take into account the effects of general relativity. Keplerian orbits can be parametrized into six orbital elements in various ways.

In planetary sciences, the moment of inertia factor or normalized polar moment of inertia is a dimensionless quantity that characterizes the radial distribution of mass inside a planet or satellite. Since a moment of inertia has dimensions of mass times length squared, the moment of inertia factor is the coefficient that multiplies these.

## References

1. Nieto, Michael Martin (1970). "Conclusions about the Titius–Bode Law of Planetary Distances". Astron. Astrophys. 8: 105–111. Bibcode:1970A&A.....8..105N.
2. Gregory, D. (1715). The Elements of Astronomy.
3. "Where should the planets be? The law of proportionalities". Dawn. Archived from the original on 7 March 2016. Retrieved 16 March 2018.
4. Bonnet, C. (1764). Contemplation de la Nature (in French).
5. Bode, Johann Elert (1772). Anleitung zur Kenntniss des gestirnten Himmels[Manual for Knowing the Starry Sky] (in German) (2nd ed.).
6. Hoskin, Michael (26 June 1992). "Bodes' law and the discovery of Ceres". Observatorio Astronomico di Palermo "Giuseppe S. Vaiana". Retrieved 5 July 2007.
7. von Wolf, C.F. (1723). Vernünftige Gedanken von den Wirkungen der Natur (in German).
8. Gregory, David (1702). Astronomiae physicae et geometricae elementa (in Latin).
9. Martin, Benjamin (1747). Philosophia Britannica.
10. Cerdà, Tomàs (c. 1760). Tratado de Astronomía (in Spanish).
11. Wurm, Vikarius (Johann Friedrich) (1787). Bode, J.E. (ed.). "Verschiedene astronomische Bemerkungen und eine Abhandlung über mögliche Planeten und Kometen unsers Sonnensystems". Astronomisches Jahrbuch. Hofbuchdrucker, Berlin: George Jacob Decker, Königl. 15: 162–73.
12. Peirce, C.S.; Ketner, Kenneth Laine (1992). Reasoning and the logic of things. The Cambridge conferences lectures of 1898. Harvard University Press. pp. 194–196. ISBN   978-0-674-74966-5.
13. Boss, Alan (October 2006). "Ask Astro". Astronomy. Vol. 30, no. 10. p. 70.
14. Lobban, G.G.; Roy, A.E.; Brown, J.C. (October 1982). "A review of Blagg's formula in the light of recently discovered planetary moons and rings". Journal of the British Astronomical Association . 92 (6): 260–263. Bibcode:1982JBAA...92..260L.
15. Malcolm, Roy (1955). "Is Bode's law a coincidence?". Astounding Science Fiction . LV (5).
16. Richardson, D.E. (1945). "Distances of planets from the Sun and of satellites from their primaries in the satellite systems of Jupiter, Saturn, and Uranus". Popular Astronomy . Vol. 53. pp. 14–26.
17. Nieto, Michael Martin (1972). The Titius–Bode Law of Planetary Distances – Its History and Theory (1st ed.). Pergamon Press. doi:10.1016/C2013-0-02478-4. ISBN   978-0-08-016784-8.
18. Carroll, Bradley W.; Ostlie, Dale A. (2007). An Introduction to Modern Astrophysics. Pearson Addison-Wesley. pp. 716–717. ISBN   978-0-8053-0402-2.
19. Wayne Hayes; Scott Tremaine (October 1998). "Fitting selected random planetary systems to Titius–Bode laws" (PDF). Icarus. 135 (2): 549. arXiv:. Bibcode:1998Icar..135..549H. CiteSeerX  . doi:10.1006/icar.1998.5999. S2CID   15015134.
20. F. Graner; B. Dubrulle (1994). "Titius–Bode laws in the solar system. Part I: Scale invariance explains everything". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 282 (1): 262–268. Bibcode:1994A&A...282..262G.
21. B. Dubrulle; F. Graner (1994). "Titius–Bode laws in the solar system. Part II: Build your own law from disk models". Astronomy and Astrophysics. 282 (1): 269–276. Bibcode:1994A&A...282..269D.
22. Cohen, Howard L. (May 1996). "The Titius-Bode relation revisited". FirstLight (monthly newsletter article). Gainesville, FL: Alachua Astronomy Club. Archived from the original on 28 September 2007. Retrieved 24 February 2008 via Florida Stars (floridastars.org).
23. Harwit, Martin (1998). Astrophysical Concepts. Springer. pp. 27–29. ISBN   9780387949437 via Google books.
24. Kotliarov, Ivan (21 June 2008). "The Titius-Bode law revisited but not revived". arXiv: [physics.space-ph].
25. Poveda, Arcadio & Lara, Patricia (2008). "The exo-planetary system of 55 Cancri and the Titus–Bode law" (PDF). Revista Mexicana de Astronomía y Astrofísica (44): 243–246.
26. Dawson, Rebekah I.; Fabrycky, Daniel C. (2010). "Radial velocity planets de-aliased. A new, short period for super-Earth 55 Cnc e". Astrophysical Journal . 722 (1): 937–953. arXiv:. Bibcode:2010ApJ...722..937D. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/937. S2CID   118592734.
27. "Section 8.2: Extrasolar Titius-Bode-like laws?" (PDF). European Southern Observatory (ESO.org) (Press release). The HARPS search for southern extra-solar planets. 23 August 2010. Retrieved 24 August 2010.
28. Lara, Patricia (2012). On the structural law of exoplanetary systems. ICNAAM 2012: International Conference of Numerical Analysis and Applied Mathematics. AIP Conference Proceedings. Vol. 1479. pp. 2356–2359. Bibcode:2012AIPC.1479.2356L. doi:10.1063/1.4756667.
29. Bovaird, Timothy; Lineweaver, Charles H. (2013). "Exoplanet predictions based on the generalized Titius-Bode relation". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society . 435 (2): 1126. arXiv:. Bibcode:2013MNRAS.435.1126B. doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1357.
30. Huang, Chelsea X.; Bakos, Gáspár Á. (9 May 2014). "Testing the Titius-Bode law predictions for Kepler multi-planet systems". Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society . 442 (1): 674–681. arXiv:. Bibcode:2014MNRAS.442..674H. doi:10.1093/mnras/stu906.
31. Kipping, David (2018). "Predicting the orbit of TRAPPIST-1i". Research Notes of the American Astronomical Society . 2 (3): 136. arXiv:. Bibcode:2018RNAAS...2..136K. doi:. S2CID   119005201.
32. Lara, Patricia; Cordero-Tercero, Guadalupe; Allen, Christine (2020). "The reliability of the Titius-Bode relation and its implications for the search for exoplanets". Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan . 72 (2). arXiv:. doi:10.1093/pasj/psz146.
33. Ballesteros, F.J.; Fernandez-Soto, A.; Martinez, V.J. (2019). "Diving into exoplanets: Are water seas the most common?". Astrobiology . 19 (5): 642–654. Bibcode:2019AsBio..19..642B. doi:10.1089/ast.2017.1720. hdl:. PMID   30789285. S2CID   73498809.
• Matthews, Robert (9 April 1994). "The ghostly hand that spaced the planets". New Scientist . p. 13.
• Perdijk, H.J.R. "The law of Titius–Bode explained". Plants and Planets. Archived from the original on 15 July 2014. Retrieved 26 January 2024 via kpn.nl.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: unfit URL (link) — mystical and speculative; ref. diagrams missing from archive
• Parés i Farràs, Ramon, Dr. (2016). Distancias planetarias y ley de Titius-Bode [Planetary distances and the Titius-Bode law](PDF) (popular astronomy essay) (in Spanish). Retrieved 26 January 2024 via wix.com.{{cite report}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)combination history of distance measurements and development of Titius' law, notable astronomers involved, and exposition by graphs and simple ratios of modern planetary and satellite distances