3 ms·
> ... the Titius-Bode law[2], which was disproved a few hundred years ago Er... the Wikipedia page you're citing at [2] has this to say: "Results from simulat
by mdpopescu 9y ago
> ... the Titius-Bode law[2], which was disproved a few hundred years ago
Er... the Wikipedia page you're citing at [2] has this to say:
"Results from simulations of planetary formation support the idea that a randomly chosen stable planetary system will likely satisfy a Titius–Bode law."
and
"96% of these exoplanet systems adhere to a generalized Titius–Bode relation to a similar or greater extent than the Solar System does."
- adrianN 9y ago"Disproved" in science often means "superseded by more accurate theory".
- johndcook 9y agoTrue, but the article doesn't mention a more accurate theory. It implies that the rule works better than we have theoretical reasons to expect. (But as I commented above, the article contradicts itself to some degree.)
- johndcook 9y agoThe Wikipedia article is contradictory. As you quoted, it says that the law works well in simulation and in observation, and yet it's just a coincidence. Of course it's not exact, but it looks like a very good first approximation.