Is it not common knowledge now, that mass evolves to space, and that the sun is expanding in accordance with the second law of thermodynamics?
The Sun changes size not due to the 2nd law of thermodynamics but because of its changing elemental composition.
Does everyone not realize that the planets were once part of the sun, and that they, one by one, on a timeline, departed the sun and traveled away from the sun and continue to do so today?
They were once part of
a star, the one which came before our current sun because any element above Lithium was made in a nuclear furnace. However, they didn't come from our sun after our sun had started burning Hydrogen, they formed outside of the sun from the remains of its accretion disk.
This link says the Earth is migrating out, slowly, agreed. This didn't happen overnight.
Due to alterations in the mass of the Sun and gravitational radiation from the Earth's motion. The migration isn't as large as you're implying.
My theory explains the formation of the outer planets, unlike the current theory which can not.
Your
guess. A theory is an hypothesis and model supported by evidence. You have none of that. Current models can describe the collapse of stellar clouds into accretion disks and then planets form from the outer parts and the core becomes the parent star. That's a level of prediction and modelling you haven't got so to claim you've got something superior to current models is simple wrong. If you claim otherwise provide a working model and demonstrate it can predict the things you claim it can.
The notion that planets were formed by a collection of gas and dust is absurd!
And yet the models work, thus the notion is not absurd.
The planets are cooling as time goes on. That means they are getting less dense by way of expanding their outer boundaries. So while the Earth's volume is increasing as it cools and getting less dense, the terrestrial part of the planet as we know it is getting smaller.
As things cool they reduce in size. This wouldn't have any affect on the orbit though, as the total mass is unchanged. Besides, thermal energy is produced by nuclear decays within the Earth, otherwise it would have cooled completely long ago.
Make no mistake, the core is cooling and mass is evolving to space. All mass gets less dense over time. If it didn't perpetual motion would be possible.
That's not even coherent. Mass gets less dense over time? Quantify and demonstrate.
So, we live IN the sun, in a less dense region than the core of our solar system.
While the Sun doesn't have the same 'hard' surface the 4 inner most planets do it does have something resembling a surface and above it things like the corona, which is the solar version of an atmosphere.
How would a rock planet form in the Sun, where its hot enough to literally melt the Earth? How would it clump together and then leave the Sun?
I answered it. All the mass in our solar system came from the core, what we call the sun. I also stated that the entire solar system IS the sun, and it continues to expand.
Are you just playing with words? Are you saying, in a very round about and deceptive way, that you're redefining 'Sun' to be anything closer to the Sun than say the heliopause and thus even though the Earth didn't star life below the surface of the Sun you're able to say, using your new definition, that it started 'inside' the Sun?
If you're redefining what you mean by 'inside the Sun' from 'below its surface' to 'anything within the solar system' then you're trolling because you aren't using the common usage of terminology and thus being deliberately deceptive. Did you start this thread just to do that, to make statements which are false if understood in the usual manner but which are true if you redefine what 'in the Sun' means, as you have?
Let's be more precise. Are you claiming the Earth began below the surface (by which I mean closer than
the photosphere) and migrated out to its current position or are you saying it started closer to the Sun's photosphere than it currently is, like 50% the current distance, and migrated outwards. If its the former then you're wrong. If its the latter then you're trolling for making up your own definition of 'in the Sun' and not telling anyone until pushed on it.
