> But now let's look at the chances that the rogue planet enters
 > the solar system. You know that at one time a planetary origin
 > theory depended on a passing star close enough to rip a scarf of
 > solar material from the sun which condensed into planets. But one
 > of the major points which led to the rejection of that theory was
 > the nearly infinetesimal chance of a stellar passage sufficiently
 > close to cause the effect. Obviously, the chances that a rogue
 > planet would enter our solar system are equally remote, unless
 > space is full of these things, and there is no evidence that it
 > is or ever was. So that's unlikely.
I would think that billions of years ago rogue planetismals
and even large rogue planetismals would be common.
 > But let's assume it does these two improbable things before
 > breakfast,
;)  Is that an Alice in Wonderful, Doctor Who, or something else
reference?
> Then the planet splits in half, and one half breaks up into a
> small number of pieces and the other half stays a unit and
> settles into earth orbit. Well, let's say the split happens.
> Unfortunately, the time needed for such a "earth" to settle into
> a nearly circular orbit is much longer than the age of the solar
> system.
Yes but BARRING that one small minor fact the theory is quite sound ;)
> Additional problems come from the isotope distribution in the
> solar system, which indicates a common origin for the planets.
Yes, umm I read a lot of evidence and scientific theory on how the moon was 
created after a large impact with the earth by a body about a third the zie 
of the earth, I really can't recall the details but as I studied it and took
a test at it in university I have to side with that theory whioch i was 
familiar with at one point over the imported moon theories.
--- FMail 0.98
---------------