[stevestheory (OP)]

If planets are formed by debri in space,how come the asteriod belt has not formed a planet

[roconi]

One possible explaination comes to mind. Apparently there was a large amount of electric,magnetic force produced during the big bang, which caused space particals to magnetically join together. Then the electro-magnetic force dissipated leaving partly form space chunks to remain as astroids and space 'junk'.
Roconi

[CliffordK]

Wikipedia has some good info about the Asteroid Belt

The current total mass of the asteroid belt is estimated to be about  3 x 10²¹ kg, or about 4% of the mass of our moon.  About a third of the mass of the asteroid belt is in the dwarf planet, Ceres, and half is in the top 4 largest bodies, Ceres, Vesta, Pallas, and Hygiea.

Computer models and estimates suggest that the primordial asteroid belt may have had over 1000 times the current mass, and enough mass to form a planet the size of Earth. 

Jupiter's perturbation of the orbits apparently creates high velocity/energy collisions that favor the objects fracturing vs accretion to larger bodies, so rather than slowly building larger dwarf planets, the asteroids generally stay the same, sometimes growing from collisions, other times fragmenting.

[Soul Surfer]

I agree with clifford K's explanation roconi's is a load of garbage for far too many reasons to bother explaining

[roconi]

Too bad you don't have the patience or time,  to explain to a "newbie" why his suggested answer was too 'garbagee', and not worth the bother to explain.
Not a very inspiring comment friend.
Roconi

[CliffordK]

One possible explaination comes to mind. Apparently there was a large amount of electric,magnetic force produced during the big bang, which caused space particals to magnetically join together. Then the electro-magnetic force dissipated leaving partly form space chunks to remain as astroids and space 'junk'.
Roconi

If you're talking about the "Big Bang", current theory is that there are multiple generations of stars, with the initial generation of stars (called Population III stars) being primarily formed of Hydrogen.  Everything around them would also be hydrogen, and perhaps Helium.

As the Population III stars exhausted most of their hydrogen and went supernova,  a few lighter elements were distributed around the galaxy, which was then picked up by the Population II stars, considered "metal poor" stars. 

Again, those stars went supernova, and Population I, "Metal Rich" stars were formed.  The theory is that the elements heavier than Lead (including Uranium) were only formed during the actual Supernovae explosions of the previous generation of stars. 

Our sun, is considered as one of these Population I (3^rd Generation) stars.  This would include the accretion disk from which our solar system was formed.

The Big Bang is considered to have occurred about 14 billion years ago.  Our sun, and everything around it is believed to have been formed about 5 billion years ago.  The asteroids in the asteroid belt contain a variety of elements including carbon and iron, and many more exotic elements that are not believed to have been common shortly after the Big Bang. 

Your theory doesn't suggest how asteroids which are believed to have formed about 10 billion years after the big bang held residual magnetism from the big bang.  Nor is there anything to differentiate between the asteroids that clumped together to form the planets in the solar system, and those that were left in the asteroid belt.

Granted there are many theories about both the early solar system, as well as the big bang.  The accretion of the planets  likely took over a hundred million years, during which time they slowly cleared the debris in their orbits.  Some theories also include migration of some of the planets.  The asteroid belt lies in the vast area between Mars and Jupiter, with the planets clearing the nearby asteroids.  Even so, the orbits are perturbed by the planets. 

[stevestheory (OP)]

Thanks for several replies to my question guys.I would like to throw another slight type ques/theory.....The gravity of which planets has been linked with as their path of travel,,as to say,,,The mass of the planets has caused,"space to warp",and it travels along its curvature,or space warped path,,could the amount of weight of the asteriod belt,have caused its gravety to warp the space of its pattern or path,and has held its mass,`though being in piece's of debris`in its current state.