Dust belt around Saturn

Why the particles around Saturn have not coalesced or aggregated ?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Firstly some of the material in the rings around Saturn do clump into moonlets, some a few Kms across, plus of course, materials from some rings were previous moons in their own right, until they were affected by Saturn itself. .
Saturn's rings are made of ice, rock as well as dust.
Saturn also has what are known as shepherd moons whose gravity maintains the distinction to certain rings and at the same time prevents other material from other rings etc from merging with that ring....
We also have what is known as the Roche limit.[see first point]

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

I have the impression the material in the rings is becoming smaller due to friction and collision is fragmenting into smaller particles

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The very succinct answer is that the rings are near or inside Saturn's Roche Limit.

Every massive body has a Roche Limit. This is a distance, out from the planet, within which the tidal forces are strong enough to tear any solid body into smaller chunks.

Saturn's rings cannot form a moon. One theory is that Saturn's rings were once a moon that got torn to bits by its tidal forces.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

 

Yes well , antiquated theories .

 

Some smaller, some bigger and some smaller again after more collisions and being at or near the Roche limit.

 

Such as the antiquated theory that the Earth is broadly spherical. What do you consider about the theory that lacks current validity?

 

Oh god. Don't feed it.

 

As you presented the Roche limit . Our satellites and the Russian space station are within the Roche limit , are they due to destroy themselves ? or to say they life is limited , because of it ?

 

Structures we have in space are not big enough to have any substantial gravity field and of course the Roche limit is a result of tidal gravitational effects in the main. For any man made object, those tidal effects are negligible.

 

Is it by that argument the Saturn belt is permanent . So why the Kuiper belt have not coalesced into a massive structure ?

 

?? Do you understand timojin?
Think of the tides on Earth....The Oceans on the side of the Earth facing the Moon is pulled towards the Moon far stronger then the Earth itself, while the Oceans on the far side are pulled less then the Earth.
On large bodies such tension can make them crumble or fail to coalesce as per Saturn's rings.

 

I don't believe Saturn's rings are permanent, and the Kuiper Belt is composed of reasonably large bodies and dwarf planets, and the rest consists mainly of icy objects.

 

The following article may explain more......

http://www.universetoday.com/112464/why-isnt-the-asteroid-belt-a-planet/

WHY ISN’T THE ASTEROID BELT A PLANET?

It seems like there’s a strange gap in between Mars and Jupiter filled with rocky rubble. Why didn’t the asteroid belt form into a planet, like the rest of the Solar System?

Beyond the orbit of Mars lies the asteroid belt its a vast collection of rocks and ice, leftover from the formation of the solar system. It starts about 2 AU, ends around 4 AU. Objects in the asteroid belt range from tiny pebbles to Ceres at 950 km across.

Star Wars and other sci-fi has it all wrong. The objects here are hundreds of thousand of kilometers apart. There’d be absolutely no danger or tactical advantage to flying your spacecraft through it.

To begin with, there actually isn’t that much stuff in the asteroid belt. If you were to take the entire asteroid belt and form it into a single mass, it would only be about 4% of the mass of our Moon. Assuming a similar density, it would be smaller than Pluto’s moon Charon.

There’s a popular idea that perhaps there was a planet between Mars and Jupiter that exploded, or even collided with another planet. What if most of the debris was thrown out of the solar system, and the asteroid belt is what remains?

We know this isn’t the case for a few of reasons. First, any explosion or collision wouldn’t be powerful enough to throw material out of the Solar System. So if it were a former planet we’d actually see more debris.

Second, if all the asteroid belt bits came from a single planetary body, they would all be chemically similar. The chemical composition of Earth, Mars, Venus, etc are all unique because they formed in different regions of the solar system. Likewise, different asteroids have different chemical compositions, which means they must have formed in different regions of the asteroid belt.

In fact, when we look at the chemical compositions of different asteroids we see that they can be grouped into different families, with each having a common origin. This gives us a clue as to why a planet didn’t form where the asteroid belt is.

If you arrange all the asteroids in order of their average distance from the Sun, you find they aren’t evenly distributed. Instead you find a bunch, then a gap, then a bunch more, then another gap, and so on. These gaps in the asteroid belt are known as Kirkwood gaps, and they occur at distances where an orbit would be in resonance with the orbit of Jupiter.

Jupiter’s gravity is so strong, that it makes asteroid orbits within the Kirkwood gaps unstable. It’s these gaps that prevented a single planetary body from forming in that region. So, because of Jupiter, asteroids formed into families of debris, rather than a single planetary body.

 

I am not sure if the water is pooled or is it depressed as it passed by the moon side. High water on the shore is usually at night by day the level is lover.

 

Not true...High tide can occur anytime.

 

Are you not are contradicting yourself ?