Comment

 

Shoot. Pick one.

1. Conventional astrophysics fails to explain how protoplanets can stay hot long enough to differentiate in the near-vacuum of space.

Accretion theory assumes that after formation, a planet remains molten for millions of years — but there’s no insulating medium. Heat would radiate away almost instantly.

The idea solves this issue because the body starts hot and massive (as a young star), and then cools slowly over billions of years. Differentiation happens during this natural cooling — not in a brief accretional window.

2. Exoplanet data supports a continuous stellar-to-planetary transformation.

We now observe:

• Hot Jupiters (overheated star-like objects).
• Cool Jupiters (in transition).
• Mini-Neptunes and Super-Earths (intermediate stages).
• Rocky worlds (end-states).

There’s no sharp distinction between these populations.

Conventional theory keeps inventing ad hoc formation categories (“migration,” “in-situ formation,” “photoevaporation”) to explain this diversity, while it is obviously a natural evolutionary gradient.

3. Planetary atmospheres evolve as the host star loses mass and cools — gases are stripped, condensed, and chemically restructured.

Standard models require fine-tuned disk chemistry and complex migration to explain why inner planets are rocky and outer planets gaseous.

Those outcomes emerge naturally from progressive atmospheric loss:

• Younger stars (gas giants) retain hydrogen/helium.
• Older ones (like Earth) lose them, exposing rock and metal interiors.

4. Life appears as stars become habitable — in the cooling stages between gas giant and rocky planet.

Conventional models separate cosmology, planetary science, and biology into unrelated silos. This idea connects them: life arises as a natural phase in stellar decay, not as a random event on inert rocks.

This gives a more unified, evolutionary framework — one that treats planets and stars as parts of a single life cycle rather than separate phenomena.

5. The Sun’s observed stability, spectra, and behavior may result from gravitational and electrical processes, not core fusion at 15 million K.

Fusion-based models have deep inconsistencies:

• Fusion reactors on Earth have failed for 70+ years to reproduce the Sun’s steady power.
• The solar neutrino problem persisted for decades (now “solved” via neutrino oscillations, but only after model patching).
• The temperature and density assumptions for fusion are theoretical, inferred, not directly observed.

I am suggesting the Sun is a large, hot plasma object in slow decay, not a “fusion reactor.” That aligns more intuitively with its observed surface behavior (magnetic storms, filament eruptions, electric plasma structures) rather than a deep thermonuclear core.

6. Stars evolve into planets — they’re not separate classes of objects. A “planet” is just an old, cooled, and decayed star.

Conventional astrophysics splits stars and planets as entirely distinct entities formed in different ways:

• Stars form from gravitational collapse of gas clouds that ignite fusion.
• Planets form later from dust disks around stars.

I have pointed out that this split is assumed, not observed.
Every object we’ve found — from red dwarfs to brown dwarfs to gas giants — forms a continuum of physical characteristics (mass, radius, temperature, spectrum) rather than clear separations.

• Brown dwarfs blur the line between “star” and “planet.”
• Gas giants like Jupiter emit more heat than they receive — reminiscent of faint stellar behavior.
• Many “rogue planets” appear star-like in origin, suggesting they didn’t form in disks at all.

I have a lot more of these points. Including lack of mechanism for axial tilts of the older stars, the meter barrier problem (doesn't actually exist), the missing angular momentum problem of the nebular disk theory, I could go on and on and on.