Stellar Metamorphosis versus Establishment Dogma: The Location of Accretion

http://vixra.org/pdf/1403.0312v1.pdf
Link to Above paper

Establishment dogma and stellar metamorphosis are very different understandings.

The dogma has planets forming out of vacuum, absent a heat source, a gravitating body, etc.

Stellar metamorphosis has planets forming inside of stars as a star is a new planet. One star makes one planet. It is basic star science. The problem is that humans have the two words "planet" and "star" as being mutually exclusive objects because of their nearsightedness of the past recent years.

I would guess about 1992 was the pivotal year in which we realized there are smaller objects floating about in the galaxy similar to Earth. Since most scientists possess no imagination though, there was no way to get alternative theories published. Now that the cat is out of the bag and we have been finding many tens of thousands of stars that are Earth sized, we can come to the more reasonable conclusion that a "planet" is nothing but an evolved star.

We therefore have come full circle. From thinking stars and planets were mutually exclusive, to realizing they are the same objects only in different stages to their evolution. No crazy delusional math is required for the greatest of understandings.

People who realize what I do can monopolize on this information, as it is superior to the Big Bang Creationism and Nebular Hypothesis that gets taught in government sponsored institutions. Basically we can build a theory that makes both Big Bang Creationism and the Nebular Hypothesis obsolete, we don't even have to argue against them anymore. Arguing against them is a waste of time now, they are worthless theories that will bury themselves, like dinosaur fossils.