Saturns Rings are "Young" (Astronomically Speaking)

[Laika]

Based on observations by the Cassini Spacecraft, reported at a meeting of the American Geological Union, shows that Saturn's rings are only 150-300 million years old. If an astronomer had been around during the time of the dinosaurs, they probably would seen them. Two lines of evidence indicate that the rings are not as old as our solar system 4.5 billion years; the mass of the rings and measuring the size of small particles (micrometeorites).

Theories as to how Saturn's rings developed involve them being the result of debris from an asteroid or a comet, or that the orbit of Saturn's moons somehow shifted and in a "gravitational tug of war" pulled a moon apart.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...dition-solar-system-cassini-observations-show

Photos from Cassini here: Cassini Legacy: 1997-2017

Any Thoughts?

 

[Terese]

I did not know they were so young. It's wonderful that humanity at this present time has the opportunity to marvel at Saturn's rings.

 

[Kemosloby]

I guess we would have a hard time proving them wrong.

 

[Brickjectivity]

Going by the article they are basing the age of the rings on the size of the particles. This must be based on simulations, because what else do they have to compare against?

 

[Twilight Hue]

Based on observations by the Cassini Spacecraft, reported at a meeting of the American Geological Union, shows that Saturn's rings are only 150-300 million years old. If an astronomer had been around during the time of the dinosaurs, they probably would seen them. Two lines of evidence indicate that the rings are not as old as our solar system 4.5 billion years; the mass of the rings and measuring the size of small particles (micrometeorites).

Theories as to how Saturn's rings developed involve them being the result of debris from an asteroid or a comet, or that the orbit of Saturn's moons somehow shifted and in a "gravitational tug of war" pulled a moon apart.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017...dition-solar-system-cassini-observations-show

Photos from Cassini here: Cassini Legacy: 1997-2017

Any Thoughts?

Only way to know for sure is to grab some actual samples.

 

[Revoltingest]

I guess we would have a hard time proving them wrong.

It could be verified or shown otherwise by computer modeling of the system.
That could establish how stable rings are.

Edit
Just noticed that I'm merely echoing Bricky.
Great minds think alike, eh!

 

[Kemosloby]

It could be verified or shown otherwise by computer modeling of the system.
That could establish how stable rings are.

Edit
Just noticed that I'm merely echoing Bricky.
Great minds think alike, eh!

They can model just about anything on the computer.... A computer model made from incomplete or fraudulent data is as worthless as climate change computer modeling.

 

[Polymath257]

They can model just about anything on the computer.... A computer model made from incomplete or fraudulent data is as worthless as climate change computer modeling.

We know enough about Newtonian dynamics to models these things quite well (much better than we understand, for example, the contribution of ice crystals to reflectivity in our atmosphere). And we *do* have other ring systems to compare with: Uranus and Neptune have such. They are not as dramatic as Saturn's, but they are still there and can be studied.

So, you are correct about your general statement concerning computer programs, but the extent to which we understand orbital mechanics shows it to not be a concern in this situation.

 

[Revoltingest]

They can model just about anything on the computer.... A computer model made from incomplete or fraudulent data is as worthless as climate change computer modeling.

One can mischievously presume fraud in anything.
But that leads nowhere useful.

Computer modeling can offer great insight into behavior of complex systems.
It's most appropriate for analyzing n-body systems like planetary rings.

 

[Kemosloby]

One can mischievously presume fraud in anything.
But that leads nowhere useful.

Computer modeling can offer great insight into behavior of complex systems.
It's most appropriate for analyzing n-body systems like planetary rings.

Oh. I am supposed to have "Faith" in science? If I am skeptical of the reliability of the computer models I am presuming fraud? They make a lot of assumptions about other rings and apply their assumptions to Saturns rings the findings are still based on assumptions.

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh. I am supposed to have "Faith" in science?

I don't propose that.
But since you asked, I would recommend learning about how computer simulations
are done, & what they're capable of. The techniques are used to solve very complex
problems arising in designing things in your life,, eg, cars, airplanes, bridges, ships.

 

[Polymath257]

Oh. I am supposed to have "Faith" in science? If I am skeptical of the reliability of the computer models I am presuming fraud? They make a lot of assumptions about other rings and apply their assumptions to Saturns rings the findings are still based on assumptions.

Being skeptical is a good thing. So, have you looked into the details of how this was done? Have you looked into the details of the assumptions made? Or are you just dismissing this because it doesn't fit with your world view?

Orbital mechanics like this is well understood. The only real issue is whether they had a grid large enough to give valid results. Past that, the results are secure.

The rings are 'young', meaning they aren't as old as the solar system as a whole. But they were around when the dinosaurs were.

 

[Kemosloby]

I don't propose that.
But since you asked, I would recommend learning about how computer simulations
are done, & what they're capable of. The techniques are used to solve very complex
problems arising in designing things in your life,, eg, cars, airplanes, bridges, ships.

Ok we have a 1969 mustang. How do we know it's from 1969. #1, people were around when it was created. #2 the number 1969 on the front of it. I do believe it is a 1969 mustang in the photo.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok we have a 1969 mustang. How do we know it's from 1969. #1, people were around when it was created. #2 the number 1969 on the front of it. I do believe it is a 1969 mustang in the photo.

I don't understand what you're getting at here.
Did you work at Ford?
Or is this about engineering technology?

Btw, computer modeling was used far far less in the 60s because computing power was so limited.
Things sure have changed.

 

[Kemosloby]

I don't understand what you're getting at here.

Btw, computer modeling was used far far less in the 60s because computing power was so limited.
Things sure have changed.

Yes, they have. But they made a nice car before computer modeling.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes, they have. But they made a nice car before computer modeling.

It seems that you're arguing for or against something, but I don't know what.
When I worked in the auto industry back in the day, we didn't use computers
much. (Even CAD was still in its infancy, & was cumbersome. Tried it...hated it.)
But these days, design work is cheaper, better & faster because of computing
power advancements.

 

[Kemosloby]

It seems that you're arguing for or against something, but I don't know what.
When I worked in the auto industry back in the day, we didn't use computers
much. (Even CAD was still in its infancy, & was cumbersome. Tried it...hated it.)
But these days, design work is cheaper, better & faster because of computing
power advancements.

Yes you don't get where im going because there is no comparison to designing cars vs dating the rings of Saturn as 150 million years old. They could just as well pull a number out of a hat...what's the difference?

 

[Revoltingest]

Yes you don't get where im going because there is no comparison to designing cars vs dating the rings of Saturn as 150 million years old. They could just as well pull a number out of a hat...what's the difference?

Designing cars these days involves modeling dynamic stress & strain of components
using finite element analysis. This is very complex, requiring a lot of computing power.
The n-body problem of planetary rings is comparable.
So if numbers aren't just pulled out of a hat in designing the crumple mode of a
vehicle structure, then the same can be done for analyzing how rings form & behave.
This would illuminate their origins & behavior over time.

Suppose various models & assumptions show that rings survive for 100-500 million
years. This would point towards Saturn's rings being relatively young. But if the
models show stability of a few billion years, now we're looking at the possibility of
their forming along with the solar system. The models could also show how ring
structure would change over time.

This approach would likely offer a much better understanding of rings than actually
going there & getting samples. And computer simulation is bargain priced.

It appears that you're dedicated to saying computer analysis is inherently fraudulent.
I've no argument to dissuade you.
But you might watch to see if researchers in different countries arrive at similar conclusions.
Do you have any familiarity with using computers to solve complex problems?

 

[HonestJoe]

Breaking News: Pluto’s campaign to be re-elected as a major planet in trouble after allegations of an inappropriate relationship with one of Saturn’s rings. “She told me she was over 400 million!”

 

[Subduction Zone]

They can model just about anything on the computer.... A computer model made from incomplete or fraudulent data is as worthless as climate change computer modeling.

Oh my!! And you have evidence that the data for climate modeling is not complete enough to create a working model? You should start a thread where you make this stunning evidence public.