Off the Beaten Path, Stellar Metamorphosis, Do Stars Lose Mass as they Evolve?

I've noticed something strange about the assumptions establishment astronomy uses to do their "science".

1. They all objects forming "as is". If a sun like star forms it formed as is, it couldn't have possibly been a different mass in its past. Same with the Earth, the Earth was always the same size, same with Jupiter/Neptune, all the red dwarfs/brown dwarfs and objects in the entire galaxy.

2. In stellar metamorphosis, the star forms and then evolves, losing mass. This meaning the objects we see in the night sky will not always remain their same diameter, mass or have the same luminosity. This is the big difference between establishment astrophysics and stellar metamorphosis.


Restated:


1. Stars, brown dwarfs and even Earth sized bodies did not evolve to their current physical properties, they formed "as is". A star, a brown dwarf and an Earth sized body are not related what so ever.

2. Stars slowly evolve into brown dwarfs, which evolve even more slowly into Earth sized bodies. (They are all astrons, young, middle aged and old).



I'll let my readers determine which one makes more sense. I guess it is a Darwinian type revolution. Humans evolving from apes? Impossible!

Well, Earth evolved from a much younger hotter star, so did the other large objects in our solar system. It means establishment astrophysics and astronomy are fundamentally misguided.