Failed stars may succeed in planet business

[bonzelite]

for the record, i'm not the one who keeps bringing up the EM theory. for a time i did. but i don't anymore. it is flawed and is too extreme in it's throwing out of all other theories. <br /><br />i will apologize as well if i come off as "derailing" the threads. i will continue posting stuff that calls attention to what i feel is evading of what is very obvious.<br /><br />insofar as failed stars that are now only planets, those objects, eg, jupiter, saturn, etc., if they are in essence "stars that never were," with rocky cores, then, really, celestial objects such as stars and planets are really varieties of the same thing, ie, a continuum of object classes. and the processes that form them may be very similar, if not the same, ie, they are not compartmentalized and "different," but they are differing states of the SAME things. <br /><br />so if Jupiter was a failed star, then so was Neptune, Earth, Mercury, brown dwarfs, all the way up to bona fide "stars" like our sun and all of them we see in the galaxy that are luminous and "successful."<br /><br />we can incorporate plasma dynamics into standard model discussions without getting all extreme and partisan. yes? for example, if i happen to remark that "comet tails are plasma discharges," then that does not need to knee-jerk everyone to think that i am suddenly an electric universe whacko whom should automatically be dismissed to the "phenomenon" forum.