Now that is amusing. Because you are skeptical, a generation of advanced mathematics must be wrong?
Your ability to describe various elements of physics (or to quote these elements from a poorly conceived ICR article you link us to above) doesn’t seem to give you the capacity to understand the whole picture. It’s like listening to a traveling circus of miracle workers explain why penicillin (made from disgusting mold on rotten bread) cannot possibly cure a person of human disease - - but that only prayer can explain cures. While here at BioLogos, we describe both solutions - - together.
Forces like momenta, magnetic fields, and gravitational pull are all well understood by modern physicists, and cross-referenced by other phenomena visible in the the heavens and in the laboratories. The ICR article thinks that the brightness of these stars is because they burn hotter, when in fact, they burn less hot. (See the discussion in the Wiki article at the bottom.)
As for whether or not someone has “observed” star formation … if we have photographs of the empty night sky, suddenly followed by a burst of light coming from the very same sector of the sky a year later … what would you call that? Are you saying that because we don’t have a film clip of the gases gathering, we cannot say the birth of a new star was observed? I think your requirements for “observation” are not just impractical, but intentionally so!
"The lifecycle of massive O-type stars from the lower mass limit to 120M☉ has been well modelled in recent years. Stars with different metallicities and rotation rates show considerable variation in their evolution, but the basics remain the same.
O-type stars start to move slowly from the zero-age main sequence almost immediately, gradually becoming cooler and slightly more luminous.
“Although they may be characterised spectroscopically as giants or supergiants, they continue to burn hydrogen in their cores for several million years and develop in a very different manner from low-mass stars such as the Sun. Most O-type main-sequence stars will evolve more or less horizontally in the HR diagram to cooler temperatures, becoming blue supergiants. Core helium ignition occurs smoothly as the stars expand and cool. There are a number of complex phases depending on the exact mass of the star and other initial conditions, but the lowest mass O-type stars will eventually evolve into red supergiants while still burning helium in their cores. If they do not explode as a supernova first, they will then lose their outer layers and become hotter again, sometimes going through a number of blue loops before finally reaching the Wolf–Rayet stage.”
The more-massive stars, initially main-sequence stars hotter than about O9, never become red supergiants because strong convection and high luminosity blow away the outer layers too quickly. 25–60M☉ stars may become yellow hypergiants before either exploding as a supernova or evolving back to hotter temperatures. Above about 60M☉, O-type stars evolve though a short blue hypergiant or luminous blue variable phase directly to Wolf–Rayet stars. The most massive O-type stars develop a WNLh spectral type as they start to convect material from the core towards the surface, and these are the most luminous stars that exist.
Low to intermediate-mass stars age in a very different way, through red-giant, horizontal-branch, asymptotic-giant-branch (AGB), and then post-AGB phases. Post-AGB evolution generally involves dramatic mass loss, sometimes leaving a planetary nebula, and leaving an increasingly hot exposed stellar interior. If there is sufficient helium and hydrogen remaining, these small but extremely hot stars have an O-type spectrum. They increase in temperature until shell burning and mass loss ceases, then they cool into white dwarfs."