As Saturn's low-density win may be in doubt, I adopt Standard Denial Tactics: 1) Appeal to personal experience - squish a snowball in your hands and it sticks together 2) Appeal to ignorance - no one has actually visited these snowballs 3) Agenda (stated here though not always) - I want Saturn to win 4) Appeal to conspiracy - This is tough because even though billions were spent on Cassini-Huygens, it was not a claimed goal that it was lowest density - but hey, I'm following form 5) Appeal to ignorance2 - prove me wrong!
All that politically inspired denial and flip-flopping and goal-changing, when you could have more simply and neutrally claimed: 0) Mis-spoke on gravitationally 'bound' rather than 'shaped'.
I will stand by the Oort Cloud if for no other reason than I have always liked the name. It speaks of time and distance and wide open space(s). Removing the sun would no doubt disrupt the cloud, along with most everything else. Lets not try that.
Astronomy is changing rapidly now. but back in the day, Prof. Oort did some amazing stuff with telescopes.
Pluto may get its #9 back, but many astronomers would need to recant: Pluto should be reclassified as a planet, experts say -- ScienceDaily Favorite quote therefrom: "Dynamics are not constant, they are constantly changing," Am inclined to forgive this truism, Metzger being such an avid Plutoist.
OT because not our solar system, but it would sound kind of cool. A six-planet solar system in perfect synchrony I mean, if it made sound. And you sped it up by a factor of a billion-ish. If I've followed the ratios in the article right, that's a stack of two perfect fourths followed by three perfect fifths.
