Skip to comments.THE TOO-YOUNG RINGS OF URANUS
Posted on 11/21/2012 8:24:21 PM PST by lasereye
Revelation 6:14 Then the sky receded as a scroll when it is rolled up, and every mountain and island was moved out of its place.
Everyone has seen pictures of the planet Saturn and its beautiful rings. Well, it is now known that many of our solar system's outer planets have rings. However, these rings are a problem for those astronomers who think that the universe is billions of years old. You see, the rings, which encircle the outer planets, would not be around today if the universe really was billions of years old.
Recent studies of the rings of Uranus highlight the problem of why these rings are still around today. One theory says the rings are kept in shape, and in orbit, by small satellites circling the planet near one set of rings. The problem is, there are nine other rings around the planet that are not associated with satellites.
Astronomers have also found 50 to 100 tenuous dust bands around the planet. These dust bands would disappear even more rapidly than rings. One astronomer has suggested that perhaps these bands are replenished with dust when tiny grains of dust collide with invisible moons around the planet.
Science usually doesn't have room for invisible moons and unseen causes. It is unfortunate that when the only alternative is to admit that the Bible is right about the creation being relatively young some scientists are so biased that they must invent invisible moons and mysterious causes.
Prayer: Dear heavenly Father, teach me now through Your Word, and so prepare me for Your Sons return to earth. In His Name. Amen.
Notes: J. Eberhart, Sustaining the Uranian rings, December 1988
Thank you, I needed that! ;)
So how long have the rings been there?
Is this another Elmo story?
Carl Sagan of Cornell explained this in one of his books I read. Intense gravity can cause a star, composed of elemental hydrogen and helium, of a certain mass to collapse upon itself, producing heavier elements (like gold) in the process. Then it blow out all the mass and this mass slowly agglomerates into a new star and planets. Sagan believed that there was another solar system prior to the current one whose detritus then settled into the current form, heavy metals included.
Starting, of course, with the HUGE ASSUMPTION that rings have to be as old as the planet, and CAN’T POSSIBLY have been formed more recently.
I never did see the reason why the rings present a problem for astronomers who hold an old universe view. There is another alternative. The rings could have been formed recently from an impact or from a pulverized moon. I don’t see this as proof of a young (thousands of years) old solar system. Scientists are not inventing imaginary moons they are theorizing that there could be moons that we don’t see having an effect on the rings.
The website’s comments are pure garbage. All large bodies of matter accumulate rings of orbital matter into an accretion disk due to the force of gravity. All such accretion disks dissipate over time as the orbits of the matter decays andd the matter either falls into the attractor mass or achieves enough velocity to reach escape velocity and leave orbit. The rings we see today are a combination of the matter remaining from the proto-planetary disk and the replenishment matter from the breakup of asteroids, comets, and moons who entered the planet’s Roche limit.
The Roche limit is the distance from the planet where the gravitaional pull from different regions of the planet are sufficient to break apart and approaching comet, asteroid, moon, dwarf planet, or planet. The debris remaining in the temporarily stable orbit forms a ring due to the flattening effects over time of the planetary rotation.
Jupitaer’s tenuous rings were very slightly replenished with some of the debris resulting from the breakup and impact of the Comet Shoemaker-Levy.
Experiments aboard the Space Shuttle, viewable on Youtube, demonstrate how electromagnetic forces naturally cause fine particles of matter to clump together in the zero gravity environment of space. The Solar System has a plentiful supply of asteroidal and cometary debris with which to replenish planetary rings for billions of years to come.
I had to come to FR to get defined as to what I believe.
I found out that I am an “Old-Earth Creationist/Natural Selection Dispensationalist.
The Universe is ageless; our clock is ticking.
Wipe the rings off uranus and flush!
This commentary is flawed in every way imaginable.
Of all the errors, the most fundamental is the assumption that if the universe is, say, 3 billion years old, then everything in it and all its forms are also 3 billion years old. That’s an obvious crock. All phenomena are transient, taking place within a very old matrix of time and space, but which are themselves most fleeting and temporary.
Would anyone take seriously an argument that the universe is young because it has young forms in it? Has no one ever seen breath on a cold day or heard a child’s laugh?
Very young and very fresh, despite being embedded within an ancient universe.
Rings around planets are, in a sense, just as fleeting. They were not formed at the beginning of time nor will they be there at the end. And neither will we.
Which Universe in the Multiverse?
Good question. I’m not well-versed in the “multi-verse”, having been raised in the Universe, which I took to be all-encompassing from an early age in Bible School in the south about the time of the Civil Rights Act.
Thank you....I only came here to see if there were going to be any refreshing Uranus puns.
Our universe is evidently an expanding universe ever since it exploded from an infinitely small point of nothingness called a sungularity more than 14 billion years ago. The mathematics and astrophysics associated with black holes and other singularities imply more extensive planes of existence from which and to which this current expanding Universe interacts. If so, the number of universes are likely to be even more numerous than the already innumerable galaxies being observed in just this one universe. It is increasingly evident that humans have badly underestimated and misunderstood the extent and true awsomeness of Creation.
Beware of the Blue ice on Uranus!
The Uranian system is really wonky anyway. With such a high axial tilt and moons that have apparently undergone significant stress, unlike pretty much every other planetary system, it would be only logical to assume that the rings are the result of some more recent process than the planet’s original formation.
What is Man, that Thou art mindful of him, and the Son of Man, that Thou visitest him?
December 1988 and you just get around to posting this NOW?
Uranus gathers no moss, that’s for sure.
Good grief, this washed-up young-earth canard was debunked years ago. Will the young-earth cult never learn?
What do the Starship Enterprise and a wad of toilet paper have in common?
They both circle uranus in search of klingons!
Why do you feel the need to be defined? Especially by an anonymous web forum?
I lived my whole life w/o being defined. I came here and got put in a box. I found it amusing, which was my point.
I don’t need you or any of this, but I choose to play along, for now.
The multiverse can bite my crank.
The creationist article references a 1988 article in Science News. The ignorance is hot off the press.
Just curious, but, where is this zero gravity environment you speak of?
In any place within a field of gravity where your own vector of motion relative to the gravitational vector of acceleration results in a zero net vector of motion in any direction. In other words, zero gravity is not so much as not being in the presence of a field of gravity as it is experiencing no gravitational acceleration against an object resistant to the pull of gravity. Hence it is possible to experience weightless zero gravity conditio9ns in the cabin of an aircraft diving towards the surface of the Earth and well within the strong attraction of the Earth’s gravitational field. The acceleration effects of gravity are restored just as soon as the diving aircraft stops descending into the Earth’s gravitational field at the same speed as the Earth’s gravitational acceleration. The same is true for any body in orbit around another object in space. So long as your body is in freefall within a gravitational field, the balancing of the gravitational force and the force of momentum results in a weightless zero gravity experience, which then becomes felt as a force of acceleration the moment the force becomes unbalanced in any direction.
“The multiverse can bite my crank.”
In the event of a notional multiverse filled with parallel universes, it already did so to your crank in an infinite number of ways and with an infinite number of consequences. I don’t like the notion or possibility of infinite parallel universes, so I’m going to bet your crank is quite safe from any of their infinite multitude of depredations.
The planetary gravitational field and Roche limite have the effect of sorting orbital masses in accordance with their mass, composition, and size. Large masses with little internal cohesion tend to be torn apart at whatever distance amounts to the Roche limit for that object and its characteristics. A football sized nickel-iron rock that was melted and compressed long ago to an homogenous and very high internal cohesion at the molecular level may not have a Roche limit with respect to a planet. The rock in that instance is to small for the planet’s gravitational field to produce the tidal and differential forces necessary to break the molecular bonds within the rock. A 100 kilometer sized nickel-iron rock which was melded together in the core of a now smashed and disintegrated dwarf planet may have a Roche limit within the Gravitational field of a giant or super-giant planet not quite massive enough to have become a star.
Since the Roche limit is a different distance for each object according to its mass, composition, and size, the reultant rings in the orbital plane effectiveely sort the objects according to their characteristics.
How does one combine vectors with different fundamental units?
Sounds to me like this would be only a temporary condition in the absence of an additional force besides gravity.
...and then I read the rest of your post, which says the same thing, in different words.
No, because I doubt that the multiverse concept is an hypothesis at this point in time. My understanding at present is the multiverse concept is one of the more outstanding of many possible or perhaps likely conjectures, at least in part, implied by the evidence. My personal best guess is that the multiverse conceept is also too limited and incomplete in its scope and yet not the infinite variety of universees it proposes. It is hard to put into words, but I would speculatee that Creation can include a vast number of universes, not parallel, which remain finite in concurrent number with infinite re-occurence and form. Conceptually this requires imagining such contructs as the moebius strip, infinite surfaces of spheres, closed space saddles, and well beyond those limited concepts.
The “Big Bang Theory””singularities, and the Book of Genesis share a common characteristic which implies another existence beyond this Universe in which a Creator manifests to bring about the creation of this Universe.
different fundamental units?
The age of rings don’t do anything to infer the age of the planet. The rings of Saturn are also younger than the planet.
,,,,,, sometimes one wipe won’t do it ,,, try two or three times for better luck .
acceleration = distance / (time * time)
Both are vectors, but one is the time derivative of the other; they cannot be added.
As you pointed out implicitly later in your example of "weightlessness"...
I've read some of Sean Carroll's stuff, and it smells to me more like the multiverse is a philosophic construct pulled together as a hasty defense against the weak anthropic principle (which, when coupled with the big bang, is suddenly NOT intractably at metaphysical odds with Genesis: which, although a far cry from being Biblical literalism, is nonetheless philosophically unbearable).
ASU's resident militant atheist Larry Krausse -- who bears an odd resemblance to Alan Colmes -- has pretty much admitted as much.
The math simply doesn't impress me, on two grounds. First, recall the Ptolemaic vs. Copernican view of the cosmos, and the mathematical sophistication of epicycles and the like: mathematical constructs can be quite complex, and yet quite wrong. And the second follows from this, and was voiced by the late Richard Feynman:
"It doesn't matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn't matter how smart you are. If it doesn't agree with experiment, it's wrong."
In certain areas of cosmology, as in certain areas of string theory (or, for that matter, evolutionary theory or economics) there is a paucity of data, or a lack of technology for acquiring the data -- with the result that there are no means for distinguishing between models, or for discarding or refining existing models experimentally. When that happens, one is left with assigning truth gladiatorially based on the reputation or churlishness of each theory's champions, or relying on authority: which is not in fact the practice of science.
Science works not because of the intellect or sophistication or superiority of its proponents, but simply because of empiricism.
And if there are no experiments which have been performed which bear an "if and only if" relationship to the multiverse model, then such models are not science, but merely speculation or science fiction (fairly good in that role), or metaphysics or atheology (and piss-poor at that).
A Möbius strip universe? Maybe that would be why history never repeats, but it rhymes?
Infinite surfaces of spheres kind of reminds me of Calabi-Yau manifolds; but what is a closed-space saddle (I am aware of saddle points from the hyperdimensional description of the "minimum energy path" on the generalized reaction coordinate for the motion of the nuclei on the Born-Oppenheimer potential energy surface in chemical reactions, but not as a general construct for the universe. Please tell me more!)
Incidentally, you might enjoy reading Lisa Randall's Warped Passages : they partition of the Universe into Branes, and the existence of three "macroscopic" dimensions, appears to offer a cogent explanation of "why" gravity's inverse square term appears to be (...well, at least to sixteen or so decimal places, but who's counting?) exactly to the second power...
Uranus must not be a tree, then.
It's amazing what they can do with ScienceTM nowadays! ;-)
Well, imagine that. If the rings were older than the planet, that *would* be a dead giveaway for a Creator, wouldn't it?
...or a least a giant cosmic game of marbles. What would the odds be of getting the planet to roll along and fit exactly in those rings by chance?
It's amazing what they can do with ScienceTM nowadays! ;-)
Or, to put simplistically, it’s just freefalling within the gravitational field.
Yes, andd that is why the concept of the Multiverse is likely a conjecture among many conjectures. It might be arguedd the conjecture is one step above a speculation, two steps above a fantasy, and one stepp below an hypothesis. In any event, it is a reasoned argument with enough basis in evidence to investigate to what extent it can lead the investigators to something which truly can qualify as an hypothesis.
“evolutionary theory[...]there is a paucity of data, or a lack of technology for acquiring the data[....]
On that point I would have to disagree and agree in parts. With respect to the evidence of evolutionary development as a result of accumulated changes to the genetic code, I would have to conclude the experimental and observational evidence is overwhelming to the point of being far beyond any reasonable doubt. With respect to the experimental and observational evidence for the transition from inorganic matter to organic life, I would have to agree such evidence is necessarily incomplete until such time as the artificial transition can be observed by experiment or perhaps extraterrestrial lifeforms are discovered lacking a commonality with the genetic code found in the lifeforms on the Earth. Since the lack of the evidence of the transition from inorganic matter to organic life is due to a lack of the technological capability to conduct the required experiments, I would argue the available evidence is sufficient to overwhelmingly hold the evidence for evolutioin of life is supported by the genetics until technology can confirm or deny the yet to be accomplished experiments.
I recall how I argued some fifty years ago for the existence of extrasolar planets in other stellar systems and between stellar systems in interstellar space with the putdown that they did not and could not exist because there was no experimental prrof of their existence. Now some fifty years later there is direct evidence of extrasolar planets in other stellar systems, and the existence of extrasolar planets in the interstellar space betweens these other stellar systems is now the subject of active research and probable confirmation. I suspect the same future confirmation is true for experimental evidence of inorganic matter transitioning to organic lifeforms. Our own genetic codes in the Earth’s lifeforms persuade me that the discovery of the scientific origins of life from inorganic matter is just a matter of time and effort.
I would further argue that it is likely to be inevitable for other radically different forms of life to have developed based upon fluorine or other elements besides carbon.
Abiogenesis is not part of evolution (changes in allele frequency within a population over time), except when it is (e.g. to ask Rubio the age of the Earth).
Look up "Haldane's paradox" but there are many similar conundrums.
Going to carve Turkey & watch James Bond now.
Haldane’s statistics and mathematics are based upon a plethora of false assumptions about the effects of the alleles upon the populations. The dinosaurs were exquisitely adapted for their environments, until ctastrophic impactors and resultant environmental catastrophes abruptly changed the rules and required radically different aleles for the survival of the individual lifeforms. Haldane and his models fail to properly account for such circumstances.
Abiogenesis I must conjecture is the root of evolution, and I strongly infer is an inherent proprty of this Universe and its chemistry. I suspect abiogenesis has occurred countless billions of times among the hundeds of billions of galaxies within our view.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.