Well, there is not evidence of the stars radianting from a single point, and there is evidence that the stars are orbiting.<br /><br />Also, since we can see many stellat clusters, and no "starbursts" as you describe, it makes far more sense that they are a long lasting, normal feature. In fact they are reasonable well understood.<br /><br />In addition, for almost all known clutsre, the stars are very old; much older than our sun.<br /><br />So in order for te constituant stars to be together after all that time, they must be graviationally bound, or they would be scatterd across much larger areas.<br /><br />While planets might (and probably do) exist in star clusters, they would not be bound to a single star, but would rather be part of the soup.<br /><br />So a planet might be warmed by a star for a few hundred million years, it then might be between stars (i.e. dead) for hundreds of millions of years before it passed by another star.<br />A very unstable (bad for the evolution of life) environment.<br /><br />Hope that helps <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Wayne <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>