The mathematical model is not the physics.
Not yet, but this is what we're after. That's the endgame.
But here’s the funny thing: when we work out the numbers of our best theoretical calculations, the ones produced by getting kicked out of young solar systems represent far less than half of the rogue planets that we expect.
So the author tries to explain a huge number of expected rogue planets, but fails to describe how we've arrived at the number in the first place. "Work out the numbers"? Yes? Could you please share? Why didn't you start with that in the first paragraph?
Also what's with all the exclamation marks? Is this article pitched at grade-schoolers? Fine but if so, what is it doing here?
"I'm not sure I have cancer, but based on the ads I've been seeing lately..."
This idea would make for a good near-future science fiction short story, riffing off what's already happened to pregnant teens.
The player made maps were usually better than the ones the game came with.
Uh, no. The player made maps were usually much much worse. They tended to be designed by mappers with no architectural skill, or tended to be horribly buggy as mappers stumbled haphazardly outside the limitations of the game engines. There were few exceptionally good maps. Most were crap. To claim otherwise just reeks of blatant nostalgia bias.
Strange, I found the reverse to be true. The maps me and my classmates made tended to be the best and the most popular for deathmatch. We even had a televised tournament one year. And it was awesome, right down to the final game.
Dear god those were the days. The GPA of our entire fraternity dropped a whole point that semester.
Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer