The following is a controversial but somewhat original theory explaining how the universe really works.

Before we get into that though, it is important to understand the concept of “entropy”.  The second law of thermodynamics states that entropy(chaos) in a closed system always increases and never decreases…unless an influence acts upon from the outside.  While this theory was primarily designed to explain the distribution of heat, it also potentially explains other phenomena including astrophysics.

A universe that tends to entropy will have less stars/planets/galaxies and more dust.  Put another way it represents a loss in order.  Such as when a new car gets into a car crash, its entropy increases.  And when it rusts, it’s entropy increases even more.  A new car with minimal entropy can only be created by an outside higher/order system (us).

Conventional science tells us that that planets, stars, and galaxies are formed “bottom up” and not “top down”.  That big bang dust coalesces to form planets and stars, etc…  There are many problems with this.  The first is heavy metals.  Your standard star does is supposedly not strong enough to form them.  Where gold came from is an excellent question as our sun supposedly doesn’t have the ability to create it (supposedly).  Conventional science tells us our solar system was preceded by another star and this went nova which conveniently produced the heavy elements like gold we have today.  The timeline for this is suspect though.  The universe is not that old (13.7 billion years), yet science claims our sun is 4.6 billion years.  Did the universe have time to expand from the big bang, form per-requesite and distributed dust clouds, form a star, experience a nova, then this nova dust clouds coalesce into our star?  This may be unlikely.   James Webb recently has discovered very old galaxies close to the origin of the big bang with abundant heavy metals, which suggest their creation may be by a system we don’t yet completely understand.

On top of this contemporary astrophysics has a problem explaining how nothing can travel faster than light, the universe is 13.7 billion years old, war formed from a central point, AND the universe has a radius of 46.5 billion light years.  That is a contradiction.

The popular theory of how our planets is formed is called nebular hypothesis and is gospel in the scientific community, yet I’m convinced it is wrong.  The theory goes that a big dust cloud coalesced into boulder > asteroids > planets.   There are multiple problems with this.  For starters many exo-planets we have discovered are too big and too close to their respective suns for this to make sense.  Also objects in a solar system move incredibly fast.  When say two asteroids collide, you usually don’t a combined super asteroid…but rather destruction into many smaller ones.  Put another way, interstellar collisions typically increase entropy, not decrease it.  Most compute simulations of the nebular hypothesis doesn’t take this into account and assume asteroids/planets act like giant snowballs always growing with each collision.

So if planets/stars/galaxies didn’t form as science argues, then how did they?

Let’s start with galaxies.  At the center of each galaxy is a “galactic core”.  These are poorly understood, but are generally considered black holes.  I would argue these are very high ordered systems and potentially a portal to a higher ordered dimension with less entropy.   I would also argue that galactic cores occasionally explode, giving birth to stars.  Some galactic cores will actually split, thus giving birth to another galaxy.  As the other galactic core drifts apart, it will drag it own stars with it.  Science has often observed galaxies “colliding”.  But we don’t have a frame of time reference…what if they are separating?  Like stem cells?  You might argue that a galactic core couldn’t expel a star, because nothing can escape the pull of a black hole…but recently we have discovered that galactic cores (including our own) do occasionally generate large emissions.  These again may be stars being born.

So if galactic cores explain how stars are born, then how are planets formed?  I would argue the planet is a lower entropy object relative to the star…so it is logically to assume that planets came from stars.  This explains much.  If true, then in our solar system the oldest planet would be Neptune and the youngest Mercury.  Perhaps in the future our sun will erupt and emit enough matter to form a new baby planet.  If this were so, it’s orbit could not co-exist with Mecury.  The two planets pulling on each, would speed Mercury up and into an outer orbit.  Mercury in turn would push Venus into Earths Orbit, Earth into Mars, etc…

So where then do moons and asteroids come from?  Again, I would argue not from lower ordered entities (like dust/rocks) but higher ordered systems like planets.  Large moons (like our own) were likely the product of large planetary collisions.   In the esoteric literature, our solar system’s asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter used to be a planet (“Maldek”) that was destroyed by a collision.  This also means that many comets could also be from previous planets and actually be frozen chunks of ocean.   Lastly, I would argue that some larger planets may be able to emit moons such as how stars could eject planets.  Jupiter may be an example of this.  It is mostly gas, but it also surprisingly 9% rock.  If this rock were sufficiently imbalanced or forces were to build, a large ejection could occur.  The famous “Great Red Spot” may be evidence of a new moon about to be born (or where one just was).

Few scientist will agree with this theory, but as we learn more about exoplanets and other galaxies, I think more will.  Jame Web Telescope may be extremely helpful in this regard.  While most in science favor bottom-up creation over top-down, one occult Tibetan source actually agrees with much of what I  have to say.   You can read about this from the “Life and Teaching of the Masters of the Far East Volume 3“.