Well, we went to school at the same time and I wasn't taught that. I was taught that it was an accretion disk. No galaxies involved -- that may be the way your teacher explained it to your class. Every teacher models their "model" for the understanding of the class and I was in an advanced placement science class. This may account for the differences.

You'll have a time overturning the Titus Bode law with that model. Using very simple models to explain the dynamics of a complex system works for school aged children (I wouldn't want to try to get into bosons and quarks and quantum mechanics with most of the school-aged children out there because only a tiny (VERY tiny) number would understand it. Using the ol' "planetary model" is fine for them. The "planetary model" of the atom is useless at any other level, though (and from personal teaching experience we actually abandon that model when they hit high school chemistry.)

However, if you're enjoying your work (and you are), please continue with it. You asked for a check and from the model you showed the answer was not correct. In general, any simple model of a dynamic system will have huge flaws when you compare it to active data or use it as a predictive model so I wouldn't expect that it would make any dents with people working with astronomical data or studying extrasolar planets.

-- Byrd
Moderator, Hall of Ma'at