The next phase of evolution in the Celestial Astronomy theory is Lunar Accumulation. There currently is no pervasively held theory on how moons evolve in a star system. This is one of the reasons legacy astronomy can not tie together their protoplanet theory as the defining theory for Planetary Evolution.
The lunar evolution theory with the most backing behind it is the Giant Impact Hypothesis. Though this is not looked upon by as large a segment of the legacy astronomy community as being plausible. The massive collision that would take place seems doubtful it would not severely damage the Earth entirely. Also, sending a careening chunk of Earth that has the requisite spherical shape and coincidentally aligns itself into a perfect orbit is hard to believe for most. Though without a more plausible theory, it is the best that has been put forth.
The Lunar Accumulation theory relies on previous concepts in the Planetary Evolution process that create repeatable definable patterns. As was previously explained, comets already present in the star system in the Kuiper Belt or Oort Cloud along with interstellar comets that arrive in the Star system bind with the star.
The difference is that once a planet has now formed from its clockstart orbit, the approaching comets are susceptible to having their inertia altered the first time they approach the star with the planet in its Lunar Accumulation phase.
In other words, its inertia or velocity is vectored into a lunar orbit around the Planet instead of a wing orbit around the star. So the reason you call it a MOON is because it's MOor motiON, or its motion is moored to the Planet. Without this, it would go into a BINDING or Begin wINDING orbit around the star which evolves into WING orbits or Winding sprING orbits. Winding Spring orbits function similar to the spring on a watch getting tighter as it is wound.
So, for instance, a planet that evolves that has no moons may not have had any comets enter their binding phase after the planet had started its accumulation phase. Or, the planet may have evolved from a comet with an extremely small mass and comets that entered to bind were of a large enough mass their motion could not be altered and they went on to become planets as well.
Planets that have 1 or more moons probably evolved from comets of a larger mass and had comets of smaller masses arriving to bind while the planet was in its accumulation phase. There are three basic concepts that are key to Lunar Accumulation:
- All the moons a planet will acquire have their motion moored during the Lunar Accumulation phase. Moons do not form around planets at any other time due to the concept of articulation and the need for linkage to take place between the moon (comet), planet, and sun in concert while the comet is trying to bind.
- The main concept behind Lunar Accumulation is maneuvering, not impacting. There is a fluid motion that takes place in celestial systems that creates repeatable definable patterns. Maneuvering within this fluid motion can be described using physics. Thus the linkage and articulation that takes place during Lunar Accumulation would follow similar laws.
- Legacy astronomers have just never seen it happen so it seems implausible. Remember we already described all the planets' and moons' motions around the star with physics. The only part they are missing is the linkage orbit. Once you have the complete synopsis of planetary evolution in a celestial astronomy star system charted out, the repeatable definable patterns provide a preponderance of evidence that can be corroborated by current laws of physics.