Planets forming by accretion do not make sense from an energy point of view. This is something coming around to bite now we are at the point of having consumed as much fuel and other energies from finite stores on Earth that we can, and are moving necessarily to solar power, we don't correctly value that power, because it is donated, not extracted, the only way it can be reflected by issue of money, is for money to be issued for free, which is an anathema for capitalists and capitalist business wishing to preserve the value in capital (and thus their positions of relative advantage).
They use the argument that Earth formed with energy within it, by accretion, so the energy on Earth is the same as the energy of the sun, so it can be had by the same means as energy extracted from Earth, and should be valued in the same way, as something that can be scarcified, or loaded, like the energies of Earth.
Yet we know that the energy of the sun is radiated, and readily converts to matter including hydrogen fuel, and even food (see "Solein) with no labor or processes of extraction, so generating no pollution, unlike extracted energy which always generates pollution from the labor of extraction.
So, as we are now putting to use tens of GigaJoules of solar energy per second in every country, we see money losing value in markets, because as the solar product received and put to use necessarily scales up, money is becoming increasingly less representative of that most valuable product we can imagine, because no money is issued on it. So money has to devalue, which we are seeing as inflation, because at the end of the day, it is the product which is the thing of value, not the money.
See the problem with the theory of accretion?
To me it makes much simpler, more systemic sense, that the planets of the solar system were formed by ejection of matter from the sun, at some time in maybe a volcanic phase of the sun, earlier in its lifetime.
This would have produced planets which orbit all in the same plane, with their own axes of rotation all roughly aligned, like we see, each planet itself rotating in the same direction.
For that to have happened by accretion, the gas cloud in the first place would have to have been distributed in a flat plane, ie 2D, not 3D, like it is. So I see many problems with the theory of accretion, which we should put right now the misconception is even becoming existential.
It is vitally important we switch to solar power with no further delay, as further delay now causes death to all life on Earth, including us.
So it would be cool if you would explain why you believe that there are only two possible ways planets were formed,
both being theories of accretion? Why is the simpler, more logical, systemically sound explanation of solar ejection, not actually the case? Why does Occam's Razor not seem to apply here?