The Main Difference Between Solar Nebula Theory and Stellar Metamorphosis

Solar nebula theory, also called "nebular hypothesis", "fissioning", and "protoplanetary disk" models.

The solar nebula theory of planet formation has the objects Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, Venus, Neptune and Uranus as being remains of the Sun's formation.

With this theory their orientation is everything and a star is something mutually exclusive "planet".  As well with this theory planets are formed from "disks".



 The General Theory of Stellar Metamorphosis

Stellar metamorphosis has the objects Sun, Mars, Mercury, Jupiter, Saturn, Earth, Venus, Neptune and Uranus as being different stages of a single star's evolution. The hot big ones are young, the cooler gaseous ones as being middle aged, the cold dark solid worlds as being really, really old.

With this theory their orientation is random and a star is a young planet and a planet is an aging, ancient star. The stars remain spherical throughout their evolution as they cool and die, this explains why the aging stars (planets) are spherical, which can not be explained with the disk model because that has no mechanism for angular momentum loss.


As we can see the two theories are wildly different. There is only room for one theory. Either we believe stars are something independent of "planets" or we can believe a planet is nothing but an old star. I think the latter makes more sense.