Expert: Steven LJ Russo - 2/16/2008

Question
 
I believe scientists are wrong about how stars are formed in which they think they are made of hydrogen gas, which they claim is their source of their energy. I believe planets turn into stars which means stars are made of matter and not hydrogen. If the matter that forms a planet can be initiated into a reaction that converts it into a star then this same reaction might could be initiated by a supercollider. Eventually stars go supernova and this scatters a stars contents all over the universe. This matter eventually collects on planets which means all planets are growing in size. When planets reach a certain massive size, their gravity creates the pressure on the atoms in their core that starts a chain reaction that continues until a planet becomes a star. A supercollider crushes atoms together with tremendous force, which is exactly what is happening inside the center of a very large planet. When you crush matter to this degree it could start a chain reaction that could cause a cataclysmic explosion that could lead to mass extinctions on earth. It is a fact that stars explode and distribute their contents in the direction of nearby planets and stars where it collects. Planets and stars are not capable of ejecting meteors back into space. This means that once a meteor falls into a planets gravity and is pulled in, this planet has no choice and it is forced to grow more massive. Nature has to have a way to stop planets from growing or the universe will get completely out of balance. If you look across the universe you will not find one planet that contains more matter than a star, which means nature does have a way to stop planets from growing larger than stars. When stars explode they are sending tremendous amounts of matter into space, and planets are not capable of stopping this matter from collecting on their surface. The only explanation to why planets are not growing larger than stars is they become stars when they reach a certain size. If planets did not turn into stars this means that some planets would grow extremely massive, and many would get much larger than stars. If there were many planets that contained more matter than stars there would be many stars revolving around planets. If there were many stars revolving around planets it would stick out like a sore thumb because astronomers could see bright stars revolving around empty dark areas of space. My question to scientists is how do all planets avoid collecting extremely large amounts of matter that we know is available to them from adjacent stars that have just exploded? Why is there not one example of a planet that accumulated more matter than the smallest star known to astronomers? Also how is it possible that a large ball of hydrogen could get separated from dense matter and form a star? Do scientists understand that hydrogen is extremely light and it always has to closely follow dense solid bodies of matter? Gravity always forces hydrogen gas to follow the larger and more denser objects, and it will not let this gas separate from a solid body of matter and go somewhere else to form a body that is exclusively made of gas. I read that many stars form in clusters, and some are binary. This means that many stars form close together. How is a new star going to form next to another star when gravity from the star that has already been formed, will not let hydrogen gas separate to travel to an empty area of space nearby to form a new star?
This supercollider that scientists are building at CERN Switzerland is also a particle accelerator. I have made predictions that can be proven with an extremely powerful particle accelerator, and the one being built at CERN is probably adequate. My prediction says that when you push particles that reach an extremely high speed, they will stop going in a straight direction and start veering in different directions and spinning around in a circle. The details why this will happen is explained in my book. I also believe Einstein’s cosmological constant is wrong, and this particle accelerator will be able to push particles faster than the speed of light.

I wrote a book called Ronald Newman's Theory on Everything and it explains the details

Answer
Well, I admire your opinion on this, BUT, the "theory" of star and planet formation used by Astronomers all over the world, is pretty much the way it is.  

You are basically saying lets throw out al factual information, and come up with something new.

Steve