I thank you for responding to my comment. I have a few other things to bring up and expand on.
The outer moons of jupiter though making up a small amount of mass still orbit jupiter. How can orbits of these moons and different satellites be explained without gravity?
And what about bodies in the solar system that revolve around the sun in the opposite direction of the planets? Many comets for example follow this path including the famous Halley's comet.
You also bring up why planets would get more dense as they get larger. I would suggest further researching hydrostatic equilibrium for a good explanation.
I also have calculations for the amount of momentum that CME's impart on the Earth. (These are very rough calculations but it's to show the orders of magnitude). The average velocity of a CME is about 5*10^5 m/s. The average amount of mass is about 1.6*10^12 kg. This gives momentum of about 8 × 10^17 m kg / s. If this were modeled as a perfect collision with the earth weighing 5.97219 × 10^24 kg. This would just barely move the earth 1 x 10^-7 m/s. Or about 10 feet per year. This however is a perfect momentum transfer, the actual value would be much less as the CME doesn't actually hit the earth but is deflected around due to the magnetosphere.
It seems intuitive that these massive explosions contain massive amounts of energy. And they do, however the earth is big and massive.
You are however correct in assuming that Newton's Gravitational equation is wrong. It is wrong! It's a good approximation but nevertheless it is still wrong. This is where Einstein comes in with general relativity. Now this is a very complicated subject to explain in a comment so I urge you to further research it yourself. But I tell you it explains a whole lot elegantly. It is also backed up very well with evidence. Though we have not observed any gravitational waves this in no way discredits that these don't exist. Gravitational lensing is a really good and neat example of it.
You should also note that the neutrino traveling faster than light was due to a faulty cable. The cosmic speed limit is still in place.
Now before you discredit general relativity (which you do in your paper) I strongly urge you to read about the equivalence theorem and more on the basis of it. Especially the math of it.
What you did with planets being quantized looks to me as if you plotted the planets and then found a logarithmic relationship by fitting a curve and then using that very curve to "guess" where the planets would be. Your methodology seems to be flawed in this case.
In Conclusion: The universe is a wonderful weird place where understanding it is one of life's greatest odysseys. I love it when people devote a lot of time trying to understand it. However your paper has a lot of logical leaps that would not be accepted in any scientific review. In fact there are much more elegant ways to describe the universe that have been vigorously tested. Your paper fails to mention important scientific ideas and dismisses theories without going in depth into the math. You fail to bring up vital things about general relativity. I do not know if this was to save space or just a general misunderstanding of the theory. If it was to save space then I'm sorry, but you're going to have to go a lot further and make it long and discuss the true inner workings of general relativity and how it's wrong.
Also you are a wonderful person. Just a little misinformed.