Thanks for sharing your discovery and for your efforts in developing and promoting this theory. I came to a similar realization this June, that a planet begins as a star. I've read through this thread and your papers the past month. While there are a few items I'm not in agreement with, I think this is by far the most plausible theory of planet formation.
My biggest problem with your writings is the semantics. When you say "a star is a planet" it makes about as much sense as saying "a child is an adult". The nouns "star" and "planet" make a useful distinction as to the stage of the body's evolution - blurring this distinction only serves to confuse things and hampers communication.
"An adult is an old child", "A child is a new adult" - sounds absurd, no?
Perhaps what we need is a word which encompasses "star" and "planet", the same way that the word "human" encompasses both "child" and "adult".
I propose a new word - well, a rather old word: Astron
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/ἄστρον#Ancient_Greek
astron (n.) a celestial body which begins as a star and evolves into a planet or moonNoun
ἄστρον • (ástron) (genitive ἄστρου); n, second declension
1. A celestial body:
1. fixed star
2. planet
...
"a star is a young astron" "a planet is an ancient astron" "stars and planets are different stages of an astron's evolution."
This allows us to make more precise definitions, without resorting to circular references.
star: the early luminous stage of an astron's evolution
planet: the later non-luminous stages of an astron's evolution
This frees up phrases like "old star" - it can now be used to describe a brown dwarf. "Young planet" can be used to describe gas giants. Less conflict with existing definitions, more specific new definitions.
I do believe that clarity and precision in the language facilitates understanding and acceptance of the theory.
