Solar system formation

[Roshi]

The formation of the Solar System began about 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation ... lar_System

How come all the light stuff (hydrogen and helium) gets to the center, and the heavy stuff stays outside and forms planets?
Also, I am sure that no hydrogen cloud will ever compress itself on it's own, because of gravity. Even in space there is that thing called "pressure". And after all that compression, it "explodes", but in a very controlled fashion, and gravity is still able to keep it all together...

Still, Wikipedia admits that:

The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the nebular disk model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, not even dust belts.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_h ... ent_issues

[Aardwolf]

The formation of the Solar System began about 4.6 billion years ago with the gravitational collapse of a small part of a giant molecular cloud.[1] Most of the collapsing mass collected in the center, forming the Sun, while the rest flattened into a protoplanetary disk out of which the planets, moons, asteroids, and other small Solar System bodies formed.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formation ... lar_System

How come all the light stuff (hydrogen and helium) gets to the center, and the heavy stuff stays outside and forms planets?
Also, I am sure that no hydrogen cloud will ever compress itself on it's own, because of gravity. Even in space there is that thing called "pressure". And after all that compression, it "explodes", but in a very controlled fashion, and gravity is still able to keep it all together...

Still, Wikipedia admits that:

The formation of planetesimals is the biggest unsolved problem in the nebular disk model. How 1 cm sized particles coalesce into 1 km planetesimals is a mystery. This mechanism appears to be the key to the question as to why some stars have planets, while others have nothing around them, not even dust belts.[27]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nebular_h ... ent_issues

It's all a nonsense that should have been abandoned long ago. We have the issue of the asteroid belts as well which don't accrete into larger bodies. Some of the reasons this hasn't happened would also be true for any of the solar system bodies, but they stick with this falsified theory anyway. If you want a career in theses fields you just have to toe the line, however illogical and unexplainable.

[johnm33]

Scientists made this stuff up, clearly their best guess based on their belief systems at that time. Then once it was established and taught there was never a time when they could 'own up' to how ridiculous it is, plus many on the gravy train of science teaching were not too bright and having bought in to the ponzi scheme didn't want to have to relearn a better model alongside their students.
Having realised this I decided I could play the same game, and just make shit up that agreed with as many of the 'facts' as I could process at any one time, now not being a scientist I'm at full liberty to look at everyone elses 'models' and try to make sense of it. That said I expect to be honestly wrong and have to change my view from time to time, knowing that makes it much easier to unlearn whatever model I adopt because the first time it wasn't easy at all.
First looking at spiral arm galaxies it seems a no brainer to see that stars are being ejected from either end of the extended ovaloid and that from here the stars form a spiral pattern very reminiscent of the heliospheric current sheet, so perhaps it actually is something very similar but on a different scale. It would imply, I think, no orbital inertia simply sufficient and similar inertia in all the, similar sized[?], expelled stars to move them away from the galactic core as it and the ovaloid rotate away from the point of origin. It does beg the question as to whether the two arms are discharging stars with opposite spin, charge or even matter/antimatter for balance. But most stars afaik are oriented with their poles aligned with the arm they're in which suggests a gyroscopic effect is in play. The sun however is misaligned unless you consider it to be a native of M54 in which case the gyro is still working perfectly, this gains some credence because the slowly canibalised arm of M54 passes through the milky way not to far away allowing the thought that the sun may have been captured by powerful fields in the arm it now resides in. It would also go some way in explaining the relative speed of the 'native' suns and 'ours' such that our much older and more powerful sun has caught up and captured, or been caught up with and captured/joined by native smaller younger stars, maybe two but maybe four and these captured stars have shed their cores to form the smaller planets and moons, some of which ejections have exploded nearer or further from the sun and now make up debris zones which remain attached to the system as a whole.