Hello. First post here so hi all. My question(s) is regarding the formation of solar masses by accretion of gases and dust. From what I understand, stars are formed by large clouds of gasses and dust particles pulling together and with enough gravity, (magnetic fields), and time. A fusion process begins. Afterwards, planetary bodies, dwarf planets, moons, etc will form (if there is sufficient gas and matter to do so). So everything in a Solar system is comprised of the matter that it originally started *barring anything from outside said system being added to the chemical make up. Gravity being an effect of mass (to me) means that higher mass equals higher gravity. Simply; Larger bodies attract with greater ability then smaller bodies. My understanding is that this should be true of elemental density as well. Heavier elements have higher atomic mass and (should) have greater gravitation attraction then lighter elements. So here’s the thing that is confusing me with stars, solar system formation, and accretion process. Our planet has vast amounts of heavier elements e.g. iron. Most of the planets and moons seemed to be comprised of similar matter but If gravity pulls gases and matter towards the center of a forming star, how is it that stars are mostly formed of the smallest elements? Hydrogen & helium but mostly hydrogen? Shouldn’t the heaviest elements (have) pulled to the center of a (developing) gravity well with the lighter elements swirling in the outer layers of rotating cloud? If (as seems to be said a lot these days) the fusion of iron by a star marks the end of a stars (due to iron’s energy absorption) ability to push back against gravitation collapse with consistent/equal energy generation, then how do stars not suffer from rapid fusion decay/energy loss due to already containing heavier metallic elements from the initial formation?