A Demonstration of the Titius–Bode Law and the Number of Saturn’s Rings by Newtonian Methods Using the Kerr-Newman Solution of the General Relativity Theory

Authors: Fumitaka Inuyama

The beautiful Titius–Bode law (ξ=0.4+0.3×2^n ) discovered 250 years ago, is considered to be a mathematical coincidence rather than an "exact" law, because it has not yet been proved physically. However, considering the disturbance reparation and stability of the asteroid belt orbit, there must be some underlying logical necessity. Planetary orbits are often computed by Newtonian mechanics calculating the kinetic energy and the universal gravitation energy. But applying the principle of energy-minimum to the Newtonian mechanics leads that the stable orbital radius is only one value, and this result disagrees perfectly with actual phenomena. The cause of this difference must be an extraction shortage of elements which rule over the planetary orbits. Other elements are the electric charge energy and the rotation energy which are guided by the Kerr-Newman solution discovered in 1965 of the general relativity theory. That is, I applied the principle of energy-minimum and Newtonian methods to the complicated energy equation which adopts mass, electric charge and rotation elements of the central core star as the Sun. Herewith, the Titius–Bode law is demonstrated mathematically and the number of Saturn’s rings, maximum 31 is calculated.

Comments: 10 Pages.

Download: PDF

Submission history

[v1] 2019-02-18 23:40:05

Unique-IP document downloads: 10 times is a pre-print repository rather than a journal. Articles hosted may not yet have been verified by peer-review and should be treated as preliminary. In particular, anything that appears to include financial or legal advice or proposed medical treatments should be treated with due caution. will not be responsible for any consequences of actions that result from any form of use of any documents on this website.

Add your own feedback and questions here:
You are equally welcome to be positive or negative about any paper but please be polite. If you are being critical you must mention at least one specific error, otherwise your comment will be deleted as unhelpful.

comments powered by Disqus