After Six Years, Saturn’s Rings Confounds and Delights

The Cassini mission has produced an astounding array of observations about Saturn this past six years. It has confounded those who thought it would solve the mysteries of it’s origin.  In science, “An Evolving View of Saturn’s Dynamic Rings” reveals some interesting observations…

“We review our understanding of Saturn’s rings after nearly 6 years of observations by the Cassini spacecraft.  Saturn’s rings are composed mostly of water ice but also contain an undetermined reddish contaminant.”

“The rings exhibit a range of structure across many spatial scales; some  of this involves the interplay of the fluid nature and the self-gravity of innumerable orbiting centimeter- to meter-sized particles, and the effects of several peripheral and embedded moonlets, but much remains unexplained.”

“A few aspects of ring structure change on time scales as short as days.  It remains unclear whether the vigorous evolutionary processes  to which the rings are subject imply a much younger age than that of the solar system.  Processes on view at Saturn have parallels in circumstellar disks.”

Noticed how “evolution” is thrown in there time and time again, because what they observed were very short lifetimes of particles that make up Saturn’s rings which cannot be concluded as primordial. These particles move very fast compared to Saturn – about 20 km/sec, but collisions between them are very slight (0.01 to 0.1 cm/sec).

Some faint rings that were observed in 1981 during Voyager’s visit have changed, “D ring and inner C ring display a vertical corrugation that may have been generated only 25 years ago.” Dynamical effects that take place, happens in a matters of days or hours. For example, the F-ring which has a series of ringlets outside the main rings, where streamers of material get pulled out when the small moon Prometheus passes by.

This indeed is very interesting data which verifies creationism. So are evolutionary scientists better off now with six years of observational data? In one way, “yes” because the measurements are much more accurate but the rings themselves, “no.” So they are currently working on an explanation that would attempt to bring back the data into their framework.

The reason why the rings look young is because they are young! Isn’t science suppose to follow the evidence on where it may lead? They will postulate on unobservable entities which will give them an easier explanation. But science should remain real rather than fictional.

Advertisements

9 thoughts on “After Six Years, Saturn’s Rings Confounds and Delights

  1. Michael: “Noticed how “evolution” is thrown in there time and time again, because what they observed were very short lifetimes of particles that make up Saturn’s rings which cannot be concluded as primordial. ”

    You seem obsessed with the word ‘evolution’. It is actually also used a lot outside of biology: I work on galaxy evolution, for example, which has little to do with biological evolution.

    The authors use the word ‘evolutionary’ in the non-biological meaning of the word …

    Michael: “The reason why the rings look young is because they are young!”

    Well, about a 100 million years at least, so that is pretty young, astronomically.

    Michael: “Isn’t science suppose to follow the evidence on where it may lead? ”

    And so it does ! When are you going to do the same, Michael ???

  2. Actually, Eelco, there is mounting evidence that the rings actually are relatively primordial. First, several different formation models work better with an older system. Second, weathering processes (silicate pollution) compared with their present-day spectra when combined with the latest mass estimates (my work – see Robbins et al. in the very latest (April 2010) issue of Icarus) also indicate an older system than the Voyager-based estimate of ~100 Myr.

  3. “After Six Years, Saturn’s Rings Confounds and Delights”

    Is Michael now claiming that Saturn’s rings are only 6 years old??

    Must be a record, even for him.

  4. Michael, we’re still waiting for your qualifications to discuss any scientific subject at all:

    “You also owe me your qualifications to discuss any kind of science.” (Mar. 5 comment to your Feb. 27 post)

    You can run, but you can’t hide.

  5. Michael: “Noticed how ‘evolution’ is thrown in there time and time again, because what they observed were very short lifetimes of particles that make up Saturn’s rings which cannot be concluded as primordial.”

    Another colossal example of ignorance and illogic. According to Michael’s reasoning, he himself is no more than seven years old. That’s how often the cells in the human body are completely replaced with new cells. Therefore Michael cannot be concluded as primordial. he certainly exhibits less understanding than a seven-yeasr-old.

  6. Michael quotes only from the Abstract of the Science paper: “It remains unclear whether the vigorous evolutionary processes to which the rings are subject imply a much younger age than that of the solar system.”

    What might this “younger age” be? One only has to read to the second column of the first page to find out: “The ongoing evolution suggests that Saturn’s rings, or parts thereof, might be only one-tenth the solar system’s age.”

    Too bad, Michael. One-tenth of 4.5 billion years is still 450 million years. Waaaay past the 6,000 years allowed by your creation scenario.

    So, again, either Michael didn’t bother to read even the first page of the article, or he did read it and is deliberately lying to us. Which shall it be? Ignorance or deceit?

  7. Azyulno, creationists are required by the Institute for Creation Research to classify every single hominid fossil as either “human” or “non-human,” since by definition there can be no transitional fossils.

    A paper in the Journal of Human Evolution undertook lengthy analyses of the Hobbit fossils (H. floresiensis) and proposed a rather surprising evolutionary path for them.

    But, before I tell you what that is, we need to know whether creationists classify them as H or non-H.[1] Ask your anonymous source for an answer.[2]

    ===========

    [1] Recall that at least one hominid fossil has received a creationist classification as both. Bwaaahaaahahaa.

    [2] Yeah, the one who feeds you false stuff and then lets you hang out to dry.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s