I wouldn't call this arguing, rather pointing out where some of my long held asumptions may have fallen flat on tender parts of their anatomies
I was under the impression that the stars in globular clusters were classed as Population II stars, the same as are in the halo and the central regions of our galaxy, with comparable (very low) metallicity levels and thus comparable ages.
Population I stars like our sun are "second generation". In contrast to the Pop II stars, they have relatively high metallicity levels due to the heavy elements supplied by Pop II supernovas. The "generous" supply of heavy elements in the regions where they formed implies that Pop I stars are much more likely to have planets than Pop II stars.
I recently came across a paper mentioning that some white dwarf halo stars had been found with even lower metallicity (like none at all) than is observed in Pop II stars, hence predating them. They were somewhat jokingly being called Population III stars.
Ras' has been having so much fun generating planetary systems for his globular clusters that I really didn't want to burst his bubble. It's easy to rationalize things when we're having fun
Open galactic clusters similar to the Hyades would be a much better venue for planetary systems, I think. I've been rashly assuming that the globular cluster generation and planetary system generation could be treated as separate options. e.g. when generating glob.clusters, set probability of planets to a very tiny value or 0.
So far as the chaotic motion of globular cluster stars is concerned, I certainly can't argue with that. About all one can predict is that the central condensation will increase while as a side effect other stars effectively get ejected, possibly leading to central black holes as Ras' already has allowed for.
...
