Jupiter was formerly twice its current size, had a much stronger magnetic field

Gas giants generally only get slightly larger than Jupiter (even with adding a lot of mass), until they start to shrink - and eventually with enough mass, turn into actual stars [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gas_giant]

So generally, gas giants don’t get much bigger than Jupiter.

> I am deeply skeptical ...

Perhaps you mean, you don't understand or you wonder how it reconciles with the scientific method? It's an interesting question about theory.

To be 'deeply skeptical' is not meaningful, imho. All these people - including Newton, Darwin, Einstein, and so many more, including the entire scientific community - believe it. All these experiments replicate it. You are deeply skeptical about all of that and of all of them? What does it mean, even to you?

> we can't directly test or falsify historical claims. Instead, researchers infer conclusions based on indirect evidence like documents, artifacts, or statistical patterns—often without being able to isolate variables or rule out alternatives.

We can directly test the claims through many methods, for example that the stone tool was made 2.58 million years old, but we can't see 2.58 million years ago (except something that is 2.58 million light years away, of course). We can indirectly test claims, e.g., that tool use existed 2.58 million years ago, through many different methods.

You're right that it's not the same. What else can we do? Just quit and live in ignorance?

> If something is not falsifiable, it is not science in my book. Research that is falsifiable uncovers deep truths of nature that will benefit humanity's progress, which this kind of research will not.

You can call it what you want, but that doesn't change its value. Is this just a question of terminology?

By this proposed theory, we can't know anything that happened before now. We can't know what happened in ancient China - did the Han dynasty even exist? We can't know who won the Olympic marathon in 1928 without witnesses to tell us. We can't know what happened yesterday - human memory is certainly fallible, and otherwise you have only indirect evidence. That applies to every scientific paper, providing indirect evidence to us of what has happened, and mostly based on human memory. Did I write what you are reading? Where is your falsifiable direct observation?

We also can't know much of what is happening now. Most science data is based on indirect observation by devices and machines. Human sensory ability is limited and unreliable in many ways. What color is the light in the experiment? We measure that with a machine that gives us indirect information.

I think a key challenge to your theory is, how do we know anything at all?

Yeah this is gonna be awesome, appreciate the heads up!

It’s actually seldom a Theory. In fact, I’d be surprised if scientists were eager to form “Theory on the Formation of Jupiter” [or Venus or the Moon] because those are already quite specific subjects that should be derived from generalized theories.

We’re thinking of hypotheses and proposals and extrapolations here. A few scientists analyzed and compared existing data, and they estimate things and interpolate and ... guess ... And the narrative develops as they give facility tours and answer questions for journalists, 8-year-olds, and 8-year-old journalists.

Theories are hypotheses which were tested and survived falsification attempted against them. You cannot adequately falsify “800 million years ago, and 12 parsecs away...” but you can enjoy your colleagues’ version of the story over drinks with a jazz band.