Skip to content
#small language model Open access

The "Sphere of Influence" Is Three Spheres, and Dividing the Mass Ratio by 1000 Shrinks Them Differently ── Earth's Hill radius is 1,496,433 km, Laplace's sphere of influence 924,554 km and the point of equal gravitational pull 258,781 km, the largest exceeding the smallest by 5.7826 ── the Moon lies inside the first two and outside the third ── [Paper 505]

Sep 2026 · Zenodo (CERN European Organization for Nuclear Research)

Abstract

A planet’s sphere of influence is taken to be one radius. This paper shows that there are three definitions, with exponents 1/3, 2/5 and 1/2──so changing the mass ratio moves the three apart. No new theorem or law is claimed. Scope of this paper (scope note): No new theorem or law is claimed──the Hill radius and Laplace’s sphere of influence are standard, as is the difference in their exponents. No orbital mechanics is built──perturbations, escape conditions and spacecraft navigation are not the subject; only the three radii and their dependence on the mass ratio. Circular orbits only──Earth’s orbital eccentricity is ignored and the distance from the Sun taken as fixed. No definition is preferred──which to use depends on the purpose, and this paper does not say which is right. Only three are counted──the Roche limit and capture radius are not included, and it is not claimed that three exhausts the list. Relation to earlier papers: Paper 337 showed that the edge of the solar system is five edges spanning a factor of 5106──that is five around the Sun; this is three around the Earth. Paper 490 showed that the fence for the Lagrange points is a mass ratio of 24.96──the same mass ratio moves three radii apart here. Paper 300 showed that a shared root can be decided──the three are distinct roots, and the exponents are the evidence. Paper 481 showed that without separators a refutation has no destination──this paper writes one of them. What is added is placing the three radii in one table, giving the spread as 5.7826, comparing the shrinkage against closed forms, showing the spread itself becoming 18.2556, and showing that the three verdicts split on the Moon. First, Earth’s Hill radius is 1,496,433 km (Section 2). Second, Laplace’s sphere of influence is 924,554 km and the point of equal pull 258,781 km (Section 2). Third, the largest exceeds the smallest by 5.7826 (Section 2). Fourth, this is the core of the paper. Dividing the mass ratio by 1000 shrinks them by 10.000000, 15.848932 and 31.569804 respectively (Section 3). Fifth, the spread then changes from 5.7826 to 18.2556 (Section 3). Sixth, the separator is what the radius was balanced against (Section 4). A planet’s sphere of influence is taken to be one radius──inside it the planet rules and outside it the primary, one boundary. But there are three definitions with exponents 1/3, 2/5 and 1/2: one mass ratio, three numbers. Three radii──for the Earth, the Hill radius is 1,496,433 km, Laplace’s sphere of influence 924,554 km and the point of equal pull 258,781 km. The Hill radius agrees with the familiar 1.5 million km, and the sphere of influence with the roughly 924,000 km used in navigation. The three span a factor of 5.7826, a sixfold width in the answer to “how far does Earth’s influence reach”. The order is fixed──Hill, then sphere of influence, then equal pull──since for small q a smaller exponent gives a larger radius. And the Moon, at 3.844x10^8 m, lies inside the first two and outside the third: “does the Moon belong to the Earth” is answered differently by different definitions. Changing the mass ratio shrinks them differently──dividing q by 1000 shrinks the Hill radius by 10.000000, the sphere of influence by 15.848932 and the point of equal pull by 31.569804. The first two match 1000^1/3 and 1000^2/5 exactly, the exponent becoming the shrinkage directly. Only the point of equal pull differs, by 5.297x10^-2 from 1000^1/2=31.622777, because of the 1+sqrt(q) in its denominator. The three shrinkages differ from one another: one operation, three answers. So the spread itself changes from 5.7826 to 18.2556, and “the three definitions differ only slightly” holds only at the present mass ratio. The lighter the satellite, the more the choice of definition matters. One thing separates them──what the radius was balanced against. Against the tidal force gives the Hill radius, exponent 1/3, an effective balance in the rotating frame with centrifugal force included. Against the relative size of the perturbation gives the sphere of influence, exponent 2/5, a comparison of which body it costs less error to treat as primary. Against the gravitational pulls themselves gives the point of equal pull, exponent 1/2, the most naive and the innermost. The three are distinct roots by the criterion of Paper 300: all are called a sphere of influence, but each balances against something different, and that difference shows as the exponent──the fingerprint of a distinct root. Paper 337 counted five around the Sun spanning 5106; this counts three around the Earth spanning 5.7826, the same shape at two nested scales. And the same mass ratio as Paper 490’s fence is at work: there one threshold at 24.96, here the same q moving three radii apart. To be honest──it is not shown that three exhausts the list. The Roche limit and capture radius were not counted, and other quantities may also be called a sphere of influence. What is shown is that there are at least three, with different exponents. On the making of this work: The ideas and content of this work stem from the author's own considerations. Assistance from an AI (a large language model) was used for structuring, English translation, and checking the algebra. Any remaining errors or misinterpretations are solely the author's. Feedback and corrections are sincerely appreciated. Keywords: sphere of influence, Hill radius, Laplace sphere, celestial mechanics, mass ratio. ----- 惑星の勢力圏は一つの半径だと思われている。本稿が示すのは、三つの定義があり、指数が 1/3、2/5、1/2 で違うことである──だから質量比を変えると、三つが別々に動く。新しい定理も法則も主張しない。 本稿の射程(射程注記):新しい定理も法則も主張しない──ヒル半径もラプラスの作用圏も標準的であり、指数が違うことも既知である。軌道力学を作らない──摂動、脱出条件、探査機の航法は主題ではない。三つの半径の値と、質量比への依存だけを見る。円軌道に限る──地球の軌道離心率を無視し、太陽からの距離を一定として計算した。どれが正しいかを決めない──用途によって使うべき定義が違う。本稿はどれが正しいとは言わない。三つ以外を数えていない──ロッシュ限界や重力捕獲の半径は入れていない。三つで打ち止めだとは主張しない。既刊との関係:論文337 は太陽系の「果て」が五つあり、最小と最大が 5106 倍ひらくと示した──あちらは太陽の周りで五つ、こちらは地球の周りで三つである。論文490 はラグランジュ点の柵が質量比 24.96 だと示した──同じ質量比が、こちらでは三つの半径を別々に動かす。論文300 は同根か別根かが判定できると示した──三つは別根であり、指数がその証拠になる。論文481 は分離子が無いと反証の行き先が決まらないと示した──本稿はその分離子を一本書く。加えたのは、三つの半径を同じ表に置いたこと、ひらきを 5.7826 倍と出したこと、質量比を動かして縮み方を閉じた式と突き合わせたこと、ひらき自体が 18.2556 倍へ変わることを示したこと、月の位置で三つの判定が割れることを示したことである。 第一に、地球のヒル半径は 149.6433 万 km である(第2節)。 第二に、ラプラスの作用圏は 92.4554 万 km、重力が等しくなる点は 25.8781 万 km である(第2節)。 第三に、最大と最小が 5.7826 倍ひらく(第2節)。 第四に、これが本稿の芯である。質量比を 1000 分の 1 にすると、三つは 10.000000 倍、15.848932 倍、31.569804 倍と、別々に縮む(第3節)。 第五に、そのときひらきは 5.7826 倍から 18.2556 倍へ変わる(第3節)。 第六に、分離子は「何と釣り合わせたか」である(第4節)。 惑星の勢力圏は一つの半径だと思われている──そこまでは惑星が支配し外は主星が支配する、境界が一本あるという像である。だが定義は三つあり、指数が 1/3、2/5、1/2 と違う。同じ質量比から、違う数が出る。三つの半径──地球について、ヒル半径は 149.6433 万 km、ラプラスの作用圏は 92.4554 万 km、重力が等しくなる点は 25.8781 万 km である。ヒル半径の 1.496433x10^9 m はよく引かれる約 150 万 km と一致し、作用圏の 9.245539x10^8 m は探査機の航法で使われる約 92 万 km である。三つは 5.7826 倍ひらき、「地球の勢力圏はどこまでか」という問いに六倍の幅がある。順序はヒル > 作用圏 > 釣り合い点で、q が小さいとき指数が小さいほど大きな半径を与える。そして月は 3.844x10^8 m でヒル半径と作用圏の内側だが、重力が等しくなる点より外である──「月は地球のものか」という問いの答が、定義で割れる。質量比を動かすと、別々に縮む──q を 1000 分の 1 にすると、ヒル半径は 10.000000 倍、作用圏は 15.848932 倍、釣り合い点は 31.569804 倍に縮む。前二つは閉じた式 1000^1/3 と 1000^2/5 に一致し、指数がそのまま縮み方になっている。釣り合い点だけは 1000^1/2=31.622777 と 5.297x10^-2 違うが、これは式に 1+sqrt(q) という分母があるためで、q が小さいほど寄る。三つの縮み方が互いに違い、同じ操作をしたのに答が三通りある。だからひらき自体が 5.7826 倍から 18.2556 倍へ変わり、「三つの定義の差は小さい」と言えるのはいまの質量比でだけである。軽い衛星ほど定義の差が効き、小天体ではどの定義を使うかが答を大きく変える。分けているものは一つ──何と釣り合わせて半径を決めたか。潮汐力と釣り合わせればヒル半径になり、指数は 1/3 で、回転する系で遠心力を含めた実効的な力の釣り合いである。摂動の相対的な大きさで切れば作用圏になり、指数は 2/5 で、どちらを主星として扱うほうが誤差が小さいかという比較である。重力そのものを比べれば釣り合い点になり、指数は 1/2 で、最も素朴で最も内側にある。三つは論文300 の基準で別根であり、どれも「勢力圏」と呼ばれるが、釣り合わせた相手が違い、その違いが指数として現れている。指数は別根の指紋である。論文337 は太陽の周りで五つ数え、最小と最大が 5106 倍だった。こちらは地球の周りで三つ、5.7826 倍で、同じ形が入れ子になった二つの階層で起きている。論文490 の柵と同じ質量比が効いており、あちらでは 24.96 という一つの閾値だったが、こちらでは同じ q が三つの半径を別々に動かす。正直に言えば──三つで打ち止めだとは示していない。ロッシュ限界や捕獲半径は数えておらず、「勢力圏」と呼ばれうる量は他にもある。本稿が示したのは、少なくとも三つあって指数が違うということまでである。 作成にあたって:本稿の着想と内容は、著者自身の考察に基づくものです。文章の構成整理や英訳、数式の確認には AI(大規模言語モデル)の助力を得ました。最終的な内容の解釈や誤りがあれば、それらはすべて著者の責に帰します。お気づきの点があれば、ご教示いただければ幸いです。 キーワード:勢力圏、ヒル半径、ラプラスの作用圏、天体力学、質量比。

View source

Similar papers

#small language model Dataset Open access Oct 2026

Socratic guiding questions in synthetic arithmetic data: matched LoRA runs (revision v2)

Supporting data, adapters, predictions and code for the article *Low-Cost LoRA Fine-Tuning of Small Language Models for Multi-Step Arithmetic Reasoning* by Jake O'Grady, Asena Isik Gürhan, Chee Fong Ting and Effirul Ramlan (University of Galway). We generated 20,000 GSM8K-derived arithmetic problems with step-by-step s...

O'Grady, Jake, Gürhan, Asena Isik, Chee, Fong Ting et al. · 465 citations
#computer vision Open access Jun 2016

Software Development in Startup Companies: The Greenfield Startup Model

The results are packaged in the Greenfield Startup Model (GSM), which explains the priority of startups to release the product as quickly as possible, and the need to shorten time-to-market, by speeding up the development through low-precision engineering activities.

Carmine Giardino, Nicolò Paternoster, M. Unterkalmsteiner et al. · 178 citations · ⚡14
#computer vision Open access Oct 2016

Software Startups - A Research Agenda

Software startup companies develop innovative, software-intensive products within limited timeframes and with few resources, searching for sustainable and scalable business models.

M. Unterkalmsteiner, P. Abrahamsson, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 157 citations · ⚡17
#machine learning Review Open access Oct 2016

“Failures” to be celebrated: an analysis of major pivots of software startups

This study conducts a case survey study based on the secondary data of the major pivots happened in 49 software startups, and demonstrates that customer need pivot is the most common among all pivot types.

Sohaib Shahid Bajwa, Xiaofeng Wang, Anh Nguyen-Duc et al. · 127 citations · ⚡15
#computer vision Review Open access May 2015

A survey study on major technical barriers affecting the decision to adopt cloud services

The comparison of adopter and non-adopter sample reveals three potential adoption inhibitor, security, data privacy, and portability, which underlines the importance of the technical and security perspectives for research investigating the adoption of technology.

Nattakarn Phaphoom, Xiaofeng Wang, S. Samuel et al. · 111 citations · ⚡8
#computer vision Open access Feb 2018

Lean Internal Startups for Software Product Innovation in Large Companies: Enablers and Inhibitors

This study investigates how Lean internal startup facilitates software product innovation in large companies and identifies its enablers and inhibitors, and shows the potential of the method-in-action framework to investigate the Lean startup approach in non-startup context.

Henry Edison, Nina M. Smørsgård, Xiaofeng Wang et al. · 78 citations · ⚡6

Related blog posts

Microsoft Research Blog Oct 12, 2026

Simulating student learning for better AI tutoring

StudentSim is a research system for evaluating and improving AI tutoring tools before they are tested with learners. It models how individuals may engage with tutors, giving feedback to improve tutor performance across subjects like chess, writing, and mathematics. The post Simulating student learning for better AI tutoring appeared first on Microsoft Research.

We use cookies to run the site and, with your consent, for analytics and to show ads. See our Cookie Policy.