Why are the orbits of celestial bodies so stable

This article, based on a broader theoretical framework (DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.23409262), provides a decisive experimental argument regarding the core question of "whether unintelligent gravity can maintain the stability of celestial orbits." Mainstream theory uses the inverse-square gravitational field to explain the stability of Earth's orbit over 4.6 billion years, but it has never provided any real physical experiment proving that "unintelligent attractive force" can maintain a stable orbit—all of its "evidence" consists of observations of intelligent celestial bodies or observations of quantum objects, and neither can prove that the orbital motion of macroscopic celestial bodies is "unintelligent." Through the following decisive experiments (P7-2A magnetic simulation, P7-2B balance-point force measurement, P7-2C rope–lead ball rotation, P7-2F dynamic balance, P7-2J holding a 1 kg object by hand, and P7-5 throwing a stone upward), this article proves the same core assertion: an unintelligent, passive attractive-force system cannot automatically restore balance after a perturbation. In a precision force gauge, a deviation of 0.0001 N will cause the pointer to irreversibly deviate; in the magnet experiment, the iron ball is either pulled in or flung out and can never rotate stably; in the rope–lead ball system, once the lead ball deviates from a stable orbit, it cannot automatically recover. This article further argues: a spring oscillator does not fly away, a gyroscope does not disintegrate, and a human body does not fly into space—these seemingly "unintelligent stability" phenomena occur precisely because the constraining force is greater than the constrained force (molecular attraction greater than the oscillating force; molecular attraction plus molecular repulsion jointly maintaining the gyroscope's integrity; Earth's gravity greater than the human body's rotational force). The Earth–Sun system, however, has no molecular repulsion—if gravity is greater than the rotational force, Earth will fall into the Sun; if gravity is less than the rotational force, Earth will fly out; if gravity exactly equals the rotational force, a deviation of 0.0001 N will cause irreversible deviation. The only way to resolve this contradiction is that there exists a repulsive component in dynamic balance with the gravitational component—this is intelligent regulation. This article preemptively rebuts possible escape routes for mainstream theory one by one: the "mathematical-form difference" between inverse-square force and dipole field cannot change the behavioral essence of force; initial conditions cannot explain the restoration of stability after perturbation; chaos theory and perturbation theory are mathematical descriptions rather than physical mechanisms; the "quantitative difference" between gravity and magnetism does not constitute the qualitative difference of "presence or absence of intelligence." If mainstream theory insists that "unintelligent gravity maintains orbital stability," please provide one real physical experimental basis—not a mathematical formula, not a computer simulation, but a repeatable experiment in which an unintelligent system rotates stably. Core conclusion: The stability of Earth's orbit is not the work of unintelligent gravity, but ironclad evidence of intelligent regulation. The balance point has never been a mathematical coincidence, but the result of a real-time contest between forces.