NOT everything looks lovelier the longer and closer its inspection. But Saturn does. It is gorgeous through Earthly telescopes. However, the 13 years of close observation provided by Cassini, an American spacecraft, showed the planet, its moons and its remarkable rings off better and better, revealing finer structures, striking novelties and greater drama. . . .
By and large the big things in the solar system — planets and moons — are thought of as having been around since the beginning. The suggestion that rings and moons are new is, though, made even more interesting by the fact that one of those moons, Enceladus, is widely considered the most promising site in the solar system on which to look for alien life. If Enceladus is both young and bears life, that life must have come into being quickly. This is also believed to have been the case on Earth. Were it true on Enceladus, that would encourage the idea that life evolves easily when conditions are right.
One reason for thinking Saturn's rings are young is that they are bright. The solar system is suffused with comet dust, and comet dust is dark. Leaving Saturn's ring system which Cassini has shown to be more than 90% water ice out in such a mist is like leaving laundry hanging on a line downwind from a smokestack; it will get dirty. The lighter the rings are, the faster this will happen, for the less mass they contain, the less celestial pollution they can absorb before they start to discolour... Jeff Cuzzi, a scientist at America’s space agency, NASA, who helped run Cassini, told the Lunar and Planetary Science Conference in Houston that combining the mass estimates with Cassini's measurements of the density of comet dust near Saturn suggests the rings are no older than the first dinosaurs, nor younger than the last of them; that is, they are somewhere between 200 million and 70 million years old.
That timing fits well with a theory put forward in 2016, by Matija Cuk of the SETI Institute, in California and his colleagues. They suggest that at around the same time as the rings came into being an old set of moons orbiting Saturn destroyed themselves, and from their remains emerged not only the rings but also the planet’s current suite of inner moons — Rhea, Dione, Tethys, Enceladus and Mimas. . . .
Dr. Cuk and his colleagues used computer simulations of Saturn’s moons’ orbits as a sort of time machine. Looking at the rate at which tidal friction is causing these orbits to lengthen they extrapolated backwards to find out what those orbits would have looked like in the past. They discovered that about 100m years ago the orbits of two of them, Tethys and Dione, would have interacted in a way that left the planes in which they orbit markedly tilted. But their orbits are untilted. The obvious, if unsettling, conclusion was that this interaction never happened — and thus that at the time when it should have happened, Dione and Tethys were simply not there. They must have come into being later.
there was life on earth when Saturn’s rings were being formed.
new celestial bodies can form from the destruction of old celestial bodies.
The provided data from Cassini effectively contradicts the long-held assumption that all significant celestial bodies in the solar system, such as planets and moons, have been in existence since the solar system's formation. Cassini's observations led to the understanding that Saturn's rings are relatively young, estimated to be between 70 million and 200 million years old. This challenges the presumption that all large structures in the solar system are as ancient as its inception.
Supporting this, Cassini's findings reveal that Saturn's rings, composed mostly of over 90% water ice, appear bright due to their youth, as they have not yet darkened from space dust accumulation. Furthermore, studies by Matija Cuk et al. suggested the recent formation of Saturn’s rings and current moons like Rhea, Dione, Tethys, Enceladus, and Mimas due to the destruction of a previous set of moons. These insights demonstrate that new celestial bodies can arise from the disintegration of older ones, underscoring the ongoing dynamism within our solar system and refuting the idea that all large celestial structures have existed unchanged since the beginning.
Cassini's Key Findings |
Saturn's rings are relatively young. |
Rings are over 90% water ice and still bright. |
Evidence of new moons forming from old ones. |
Planetary processes are ongoing and dynamic. |
Hence, the most directly challenged assumption by Cassini's data is that "all big things in the solar system have been around since the beginning."
To determine the main objective of the passage, we need to analyze the content's primary themes and implied conclusions. The passage discusses observations and scientific conclusions regarding Saturn's rings and moons based on data from the Cassini spacecraft. Key elements include:
The passage initially praises the beauty and complexity revealed by Cassini’s observations of Saturn, its rings, and its moons.
A hypothesis suggests Saturn’s rings and moons may be recent, due to their brightness and historical estimates of mass absorption and the density of comet dust indicating a younger age for these celestial objects.
The passage explains a theory by Matija Cuk and his colleagues, using computer simulations, suggesting Saturn’s current inner moons are relatively young, formed from the remnants of older moons approximately 100 million years ago.
The main objective of the passage aligns with the process of establishing that Saturn’s rings and inner moons are relatively young formations. Although there is mention of theories about their potential youth, the broader context emphasizes how observational data has shaped new theories about their existence, challenging the notion they have been around since the solar system's beginning. Therefore, the correct answer to the passage’s main objective is:
From a very early age, I knew that when I grew up, I should be a writer. I had the lonely child's habit of making up stories and holding conversations with imaginary persons, and I think from the very start my literary ambitions were mixed up with the feeling of being isolated and undervalued. I knew that I had a facility with words and a power of facing unpleasant facts, and I felt that this created a sort of private world in which I could get my own back for my failure in everyday life. I wanted to write enormous naturalistic novels with unhappy endings, full of detailed descriptions and arresting similes, and also full of purple passages in which words were used partly for the sake of their sound. I give all this background information because I do not think one can assess a writer's motives without knowing something of his early development.
His subject-matter will be determined by the age he lives in — at least this is true in tumultuous, revolutionary ages like our own — but before he ever begins to write he will have acquired an emotional attitude from which he will never completely escape. It is his job to discipline his temperament, but if he escapes from his early influences altogether, he will have killed his impulse to write. I think there are four great motives for writing, at any rate for writing prose. They are: (i) Sheer egoism: Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood; (ii) Aesthetic enthusiasm: Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed (iii) Historical impulse: Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity (iv) Political purpose: Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society that they should strive after.
[Extracted with edits from George Orwell's "Why I Write"]
Read the sentence and infer the writer's tone: "The politician's speech was filled with lofty promises and little substance, a performance repeated every election season."