Hi Jim, you are welcome! Thanks for your questions and comments!

I agree, that is why I ultimately look at it as "the way things are" rather than "theory"; because it is so simple and able to use classical mechanics alone to explain things. I always felt the mistake in current models began with the interpretation of redshifted galaxies being the result of motion and wondered for a long time how gravitational redshift could possibly produce the observations until one day I realized to incorporate bending light into it (actually, a song told me: "I will bend every light in the city and make sure its shining on you." I was listening to, and playing on piano, the song Already Home by A Great Big World daily for months when the connection popped into my head one night). From there, I came to recognize the Figure-8 orbital because I tried to find explanations for more and more observations based on the model and electromagnetism was suddenly viewable as an emergent phenomena.

I especially agree that current models are very earth-centric. I actually wrote an article on Steemit about the "geocentricity" of current models on this very subject. :D

"The question was if this is enough or there is some connection between these inside particles like the "chemical bond" we know."

Well, structures such as planets and stars and so on are only "large" relative to atoms because we are composed of atoms. The same "is this enough" would apply to atoms, electrons, even photons, as they are as equally built from smaller objects as larger objects are. To me, the real key is that there is not uniformity in the infinite energy of the universe. If all energy were to be exactly equal then everything would be exactly spaced and nothing would move, but because there is this variance it leads to the cascading of all energy into the infinite variations we see. I look at it as the result of infinity coupled with "nothingness", in a way.

In regard to chemical bonds, I believe that in bodies such as Earth the atoms are pressed closely together by gravity and their electromagnetic fields hold them apart but only to a degree. This makes it so they are close enough to share "electrons" (like a planet shared between two stars). If there is less pressure like in deep space then the atoms aren't pressed as closely together and their electromagnetic fields keep them further apart so they may not form "chemical bonds" as easily as on Earth.

"planet and star formation (are nebulae and space debris enough?)"

These types of things are likely resultant from higher energy sources. For example, half of the Earth's atoms are not receiving sunlight during their night and so we observe our surroundings as dark in the visible light spectrum because the electrons are not becoming excited (which is basically supernovaing repetitively). During the day, they receive that energy source and so they become excited (supernova). This energy input does more than just create excited electrons, it also ultimately feeds the creation of new systems on deeper levels of the universe (on a time scale that we may see as instantaneous because we are composed of atoms but observers deeper in the levels of the universe would see as the creation of stars and planets). The same could be said for how our own stars and planets are fed into creation.

"heavy elements abundance (are the rare supernovas enough to fill the entire universe with such elements?)"

This kind of connects to water production and earth expansion. Electromagnetic fields play a critical role in this because they are flowing physical matter through a body and through its center of mass. As they approach the center of mass, the density of these particles grows larger and larger and their probability of interacting and becoming observed as larger systems (such as atoms) increases. Likely, much of the creation of heavy elements also is from the convergence of electromagnetic field flows at the center of bodies.

"water production and earth expansion"

I actually wrote an article on this: Origins of Water on Earth.

This just explains again why electromagnetism is the key.

This brings up the concept that Earth once was a rocky body largely without water on its surface, and so I will reference here some related information I wrote about that you might find interesting:
Chapter 1 of Genesis - A Scientific Analysis (PART 1)
Chapter 1 of Genesis - A Scientific Analysis (PART 2)

Noting that a song directed me in finding how all things can be reduced to the result of one thing (gravity), I immediately was considering the question of God (as the cause of gravity) and did very thorough research into scripture and prophecies of all sources. I went through Isaac Newton's esoteric work extensively and found it all fascinating. The Kybalion explains things very accurately from a physics standpoint so I was very taken by it all (particularly the "Principle of Correspondence"--as above, so below. as below, so above). Using scientific observations and my view of how the universe works as my basis, these were my conclusions. I don't know how you feel about God and scripture in general, but there are many connections throughout everything that are, in the very least, fascinating. :)