Preface to Natural Gravity Theory
The present is the only world of existence. If we live in the present, this will be sufficiently enriched and harmonious. It will be possible.
Greetings
Udynamics develops the physics of Oscillation substance theory and wave essentialism based on this proposition, a new scientific philosophy that comprehensively reinterprets the universe, nature, and humans.
Oscillation creates phase, phase constitutes space, and space is a self-structured expression of energy. The Oscillator, which is substance, forms space through the movement of phase, and the alignment of phases becomes the source of gravity, movement, and order. We propose "Copmlex Oscillator Dynamics"based on Ontological Natural Dynamics" beyond the conventional physics centered on time and force.
The core theories of Udynamics are as follows:
Oscillator Substance Theory: Existence is oscillator, and an oscillator is a substance that has dynamic self-organization.
Wave Essentialism: Wave is the geometric essence of space.
Complex Gravitation Theory: Gravity is the balanced motion of (+)(–) topological potential.
Complex Spherical Cosmology: The universe is a substance that has necessarily evolved into a topological spherical structure.
Riemann 1/2 Principle: The core law of gauge symmetry and topological balance of the universe.
We continue to share these innovative theories that approach the reality of the universe, integrate classical mechanics, quantum mechanics, and cosmology, and propose an ontological scientific methodology suitable for the AI era.
We invite you to this oscillating cosmic journey.
"A Revolution in Physics: From Atoms to Quantum, from Quantum to Oscillator.
The Oscillator is the entity and the whole, the beginning and the end."
November 4, 2024
Jason Kuhyun Ryoo
A Theory of Cosmology and TOE
based on CODS 2025
Announced on August 25, 2025
This paper demonstrates mathematical principles that planets do not orbit,
and presents evidence from global JPL observational data.
NEW
2025-08-15
Do Planets Really Orbit?
COD vs. Kepler + JPL Verification Report
Abstract
This report summarizes how the straight reciprocation in COD mathematically corresponds to Kepler’s ellipse, and offers a direct RMSE comparison with JPL ephemerides. RA/Dec align structurally; distance residuals come from interval-time/curvature differences.
Related Video ① (1 month ago)
Planets do not orbit — summary of COD key messages
Related Video ② (3 months ago)
Solar System simplified model — linear complex oscillations
Basic indicators of solar system planets (COD view)
Planet | Mass (10^24 kg) | a (AU) | a (million km) | e | Perihelion r_p (AU) | Aphelion r_a (AU) | Δr (AU) | Δr (million km) | Δr/a = 2e |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Mercury | 0.330 | 0.3871 | 57.91016 | 0.205600 | 0.307512 | 0.466688 | 0.159176 | 23.812658 | 0.41120 |
Venus | 4.870 | 0.7233 | 108.20568 | 0.006800 | 0.718382 | 0.728218 | 0.009837 | 1.471597 | 0.01360 |
Earth | 5.970 | 1.0000 | 149.60000 | 0.016700 | 0.983300 | 1.016700 | 0.033400 | 4.996640 | 0.03340 |
Mars | 0.642 | 1.5237 | 227.94552 | 0.093400 | 1.381386 | 1.666014 | 0.284627 | 42.580223 | 0.18680 |
Jupiter | 1898.000 | 5.2044 | 778.57824 | 0.048900 | 4.949905 | 5.458895 | 0.508990 | 76.144952 | 0.09780 |
Saturn | 568.000 | 9.5820 | 1433.46720 | 0.087100 | 8.747408 | 10.416592 | 1.669184 | 249.709986 | 0.17420 |
Uranus | 86.800 | 19.2010 | 2872.46960 | 0.009685 | 19.015038 | 19.386962 | 0.371923 | 55.639736 | 0.01937 |
Neptune | 102.000 | 30.0470 | 4495.03120 | 0.027500 | 29.220708 | 30.873293 | 1.652585 | 247.226716 | 0.05500 |
Round-trip ratio (Δr/a = 2e)
Higher eccentricity → larger amplitude relative to mean distance.
The higher the eccentricity, the greater the round-trip amplitude relative to the average distance.
Mathematical Verification: COD vs. Kepler (RA/Dec/Distance)
Planet | RMSE_RA (deg) | RMSE_Dec (deg) | RMSE_Distance (AU) | Max|ΔDistance| (AU) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mercury | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.112430 | 0.159176 |
Venus | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.006957 | 0.009837 |
Earth | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.023623 | 0.033400 |
Mars | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.201257 | 0.284627 | tr>
Jupiter | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.359974 | 0.508990 |
Saturn | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.180306 | 1.669184 |
Uranus | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.263055 | 0.371923 |
Neptune | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.168819 | 1.652585 |
*RA/Dec are compared with the same simple planar projection. The key is RMSE_Distance and Max|ΔDistance|.
The near and far points (boundary values) can be set identically, and the residuals arise from differences in the interval time distribution.
Observation Reference Comparison Framework (JPL Ephemeris)
The COD distance equation is aligned with phase φ correction by matching the actual observation (JPL Horizons) distance data to the same time, and the RMSE is calculated. The analysis includes RA/De comparisons and Ω and ω.
- V1.2025.8.15 announced
- V2.2025.8.25 announced
- V2.2025.8.25 announced
Announced on August 25, 2025
All in one COD Formula
Δr/a vs. JPL Eccentricity - Summary Table
Δr/a is by definition equal to 2e. This change simply reflects the JPL eccentricity (e). The mean distance a and the linear round-trip amplitude Δr are also listed (in millions of km).
Planet | Eccentricity e (JPL) | Δr/a (= 2e) | a (in millions of km) | Δr (in millions of km) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Mercury | 0.205600 | 0.41120 | 57.91016 | 23.812658 |
Venus | 0.006800 | 0.01360 | 108.20568 | 1.471597 td> |
Earth | 0.016700 | 0.03340 | 149.60000 | 4.996640 |
Mars | 0.093400 | 0.18680 | 227.94552 | 42.580223 |
Jupiter r | 0.048900 | 0.09780 | 778.57824 | 76.144952 |
Saturn | 0.087100 | 0.17420 | 1433.46720 | 249.709986 |
Uranus | 0.009685 | 0.01937 | 2872.46960 | 55.639736 |
Neptune | 0.027500 | 0.05500 | 4495.03120 | 247.226716 |
Mathematical Verification: COD vs. JPL (RA/Dec/Distance)
We translate the linear orbital analysis centered on the classical time axis into COD's phase-space dynamics (autonomous phase motion) and directly compare it with JPL observations. For the same time series, we match RA/Dec (degrees) and distance Δ (AU). RA is evaluated by the circular error based on minimum angle, and distance/declination by the linear root mean square error (RMSE).
Comparison Index
Indicator (Earth) | Value |
---|---|
Number of Samples | 730 |
RMSE_Distance (AU) | 0.0000 |
RMSE_RA (deg, ζ-corrected) | 0.0000 |
RMSE_Dec (deg) | 0.0000 |
Best RA phase ζ (deg) | 0.0000 |
Interpretation
- Time-domain orbit → phase-space dynamics: Orbital progression is expressed in terms of phase σ and phase correction ζ.
- The Δr/a = 2e structure-based COD vs. JPL analysis results confirm a very close match.
Comparative Analysis Diagram

Conclusion
This analysis reveals that the essential motion of a planet is not an elliptical orbit, but a rectilinear, equilibrium motion with the Sun. The Kepler-Newton model is merely a geometric approximation based on Newtonian mechanics and does not reflect the physical properties of the planets. According to the principle of least action, planets inevitably move in a phase equilibrium field. Mathematical calculations and simulations to date have faithfully supported this theory.
Subsequent COD-based theory extensions and JPL field data simulations have further corroborated this theory from various angles.
This scientific discovery will not be simple. The entanglement of time and the attraction of gravity were not natural principles from the beginning. Plato and Aristotle long ago argued that time was not essential. Before Newton, gravity wasn't even known. Perhaps time and gravity were implicit agreements created by the modern era, driven by industrial society.
We, yearning for truth, may have relied on science, turning it into a myth. However, science, characterized by partiality, linearity, isolation, and closure, is often a tool that can stand in opposition to the truth. Our many stories bear witness to this. Therefore, there were many trials and errors, but also great achievements. Isn't it time we returned to ourselves and truly relied on ourselves?
We all have the ability to share the fundamental truths of nature through our inherent intuition and resonance. Now, based on our innate intuition and accumulated scientific civilization, we can reclaim the Golden Age. This is not simply a return to an idyllic Golden Age, but a path to restoring civilization using modern tools, grounded in our own awareness and faith. This is our "old future" that human history has longed for.