Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This is a theory which explains that planet formation is stellar evolution itself. A planet is nothing but an ancient/dying star. They were never mutually exclusive, ever. A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient star.
I'm with Ben on this one. There is a lot of physical evidence as to why stars and planets are distinct. No evidence seems to be offered in support of them being the same.
This is a theory which explains that planet formation is stellar evolution itself. A planet is nothing but an ancient/dying star. They were never mutually exclusive, ever. A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient star.
Actually, the difference between a planet and a star is its mass. Anything that has sufficient mass to achieve hydrostatic equilibrium (becomes round) due to gravitational forces, but less than ~13 Jupiter masses, is a planet (as in "planetoid", "minor planet", "dwarf planet", "planet", and/or "gas giant").
If an object has more than ~13 Jupiter masses deuterium burning begins and the object becomes a Brown Dwarf. If there is sufficient mass for the core to reach more than 15 million degrees Kelvin, hydrogen fusion begins and a star is born.
While both stars and planets are formed from the same solar nebula, they are indeed very different objects. Planets are merely the left over scraps that did not go into the formation of the star. Just as asteroids, comets, and planetesimals are left over scraps that did not go into the formation of the planets. All the planets in a given solar system are the same age as their parent star and made from the same material.
You don't even have to consider the source - all you need to do is read the article, and you plainly see that there is not one word in there that suggests planets are ancient stars.
And if you do read the article, you'll quickly find that the material there doesn't even come close to matching the breathless drama of the headline. The article itself is just a poorly-written rehash of a few aspects of planetary research over the last ten years or so. The titular assertion that "scientists have NO idea how planets form" is a flat-out lie, and the article itself doesn't even attempt to support that idiotic hyperbole.
They are old evolving stars. A planet is an ancient star.
So how did they get to be in near circular orbits around a new star and all in the same plane? And moons? Are they ancient stars too? And why would some ancient stars evolve into rocky inner planets and into gas giants as outer planets?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
A star is a new planet and a planet is an ancient star. 
