This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A much better picture of the lakes on Titan is now available from NASA. I would add this to the article, but I am a newbie and I don't know how to edit picture references. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA17655 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.17 ( talk) 14:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't the adjective "Titanian" collide with Titania (moon)?? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 02:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Not the last one, but the next one. Where, and when? 67.190.27.217 ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
In a rare photo, the Cassini probe cameras were able to see through a thinner-than-usual cloud cover and take a picture of Titan with an unusually clear view of Kraken Mare, one of Titans largest hydrocarbon seas. This photo might be a good addition to the article. Being a NASA photo, if sourced from the original website, it would be a public domain, free use photo. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/28/9074422-could-titans-seas-harbor-life 64.134.58.37 ( talk) 04:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
March 25 might make a good day for front page presentation of this article. What do you think? It should be worth at least 5 points on WP:TFAR. Regards, RJH ( talk) 01:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, some concerns:
&c. &c. Plus its getting cluttered up with images and the External links section is bloated. Regards, RJH ( talk) 15:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Methinks this page be missin' a comma. I'm pretty sure that should say "...water, ice..." not "...water ice...". Not like Titan has Pepsi ice (ice made out of Pepsi, as opposed to ice made out of water) on it, LOL. (I noticed it has a lock on it, and I would correct it, but since I'm not registered, I wasn't sure if it would let me or not.) 98.71.131.44 ( talk) 05:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Neither this article nor the one on the probe explains why only one image of the surface was photographed. Was there a failure of the probe, or was the surface image simply a "bonus" after the landing? 68.146.70.177 ( talk) 05:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It says: "Huygens in situ image from Titan's surface—the only image from the surface of an object farther away than Mars". Didn't NEAR return an image from the surface of Eros, or was it taken just a few meters above before the actual soft-landing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.98.140 ( talk) 21:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The article is long as it is, so per WP:SUMMARY I am leaving the required summary and link to its main article: ATmosphere of Titan. DO not revert again without discussion and a logical purpose. Thank you. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers,
On a related note, does anyone else not like the current structure, or does the current content summarise it enough for the layman? Serendi pod ous 21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so! This should be adjusted or removed. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 10:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2009/02/cassini-maps-global-pattern-of-titans-dunes
"At Titan there are very few clouds, so determining which way the wind blows is not an easy thing, but by tracking the direction in which Titan's sand dunes form, we get some insight into the global wind pattern," says Ralph Lorenz, Cassini radar scientist at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. "Think of the dunes sort of like a weather vane, pointing us to the direction the winds are blowing." Kortoso ( talk) 23:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Map data has been added for Titan in the miniwikiatlas for displaying geolocation data. I'm not sure how to add it or configure it, but I think that it would make a good addition to the page. Autocorr ( talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The article appears to lack any information on its formation and evolution. Surely there are some prominent theories. A recent article here http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_impact_scenario_may_explain_the_unusual_moons_of_Saturn_999.html suggests at least one that could be considered for inclusion. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to recent edits (to which, I hasten to add, I objected) the most interesting and defining characteristics of Titan (ie, its atmosphere and weather) are now barely discussed, while the most obscure and hypothetical speculations (ie, life) take up almost a quarter of its length. I think some kind of rebalancing is in order. Serendi pod ous 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The caption of the surface image says: "[...] the only image from the surface of a planetary body farther away than Mars". Now I understand that Titan is essentially like a terrestrial planet except that it happens to orbit a gas giant and not the sun, and that distinctions between classes of astronomical objects such as (terrestrial) planet and satellite as well as gas giant and star are basically arbitrary and the boundaries fuzzy, with ambiguous cases known, but a planetary body is simply the same as a planet, and according to the well-known current (as well as older) definition of planet, Titan just isn't one. So this description irks me, even if I appreciate the intent. There are further instances where the term planetary is used in the article, but never referring as directly to Titan specifically. To repeat, it does make sense considering the physical characteristics of Titan, so I'm sympathetic and torn in this case (an admittedly minor issue), but astronomers still classify Titan as a satellite and very much not a "planetary body", even if in practice, Titan may be treated as essentially a planet or studied in the context of planetary science (which is sometimes called Lunar and Planetary Science to clarify that it does not exclusively cover planets, but that research concerning natural satellites is also in its scope). Is there a technically correct way to convey the intended idea in the caption? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This could fit in, but I don't seem to be able to figure out where. :) Reh man 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
This sentence awkward because the reader does not grasp the meaning of "although" until the end:
I propose instead:
Titan has an axial tilt of 26.7 degrees, which is responsible for Titan having seasons. Yet the axial tilt in the info box says zero. This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.199.155.29 ( talk) 17:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The article currently states:
Composition data and transport models need to be substantiated, and per Occam's razor, a physical or chemical explanation is preferred a priori over one of biology (given the simplicity of chemical catalysts versus the complexity of biological forms).[citation needed]
The Occam's Razor claim seemed to me to be thoroughly dodgy (as in my admittedly limited experience most such claims seem to be), so I asked for a citation nearly 6 weeks ago. So far, none has been forthcoming.
Chris McKay's cited paper makes no mention of Occam. But in the discussion about the paper by 'Alliance members' at the current URL ( http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/making_sense.php.html ), Occam does get mentioned once, by a Colin Robinson. Unusually, his use of Occam does not seem thoroughly dodgy: [catalysts + organisms] really is an inherently more complex explanation than [catalysts alone], provided we assume that the probability of catalysts and the probability of organisms are independant of each other. But Robinson is merely presenting Occam in order to reject it (he is presumably implicitly saying the two probabilities are not really independant of each other, though he doesn't use that terminology). And Mckay's reply makes no mention of Occam, and seems to be saying 'you may well be right'. Unlike our very different use of Occam, Robinson was clearly talking about the complexity of the explanation, whereas our use seems to substitute the complexity of the physics for the complexity of the explanation (which should be about the number of independent assumptions being made (and their probabilities), and not such things as the number of molecules required in the explanation).
So it seems to me that what we have here is OR (Original Research, which is banned by WP:OR) with no supporting citation 6 weeks after one was requested, and worse, Original Research that is probably wrong (given that when the matter is discussed by experts on the issue, Mckay and Robinson, they use Occam differently and reach a different conclusion).
So without a citation it should be removed, but the question is when. I could leave it for another 6 weeks or so. But I am concerned that I will then forget to remove it and it may hang around for years (as has happened elsewhere), while leaving the 'citation needed' request may also unnecessarily cause doubt in the reader's mind about the first half of the sentence (about composition data and transport models).
So I'm going to delete it now. But if anybody feels more time should be given for a citation to be found, please feel free to revert me, while preferably also indicating how much longer you think we should wait. Tlhslobus ( talk) 07:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
We currently say: Viewed from Earth, Titan reaches an angular distance of about 20 Saturn radii (just over 1,200,000 kilometres (750,000 mi)) from Saturn and subtends a disk 0.8 arcseconds in diameter.
But the more precise position seems likely to be something like: Viewed from any distance (and whether from Earth or elsewhere), Titan reaches an angular distance of about 20 Saturn radii (just over 1,200,000 kilometres (750,000 mi)) from Saturn, and, viewed from Earth when at its closest to (or furthest from? or average distance from?) Saturn, subtends a disk 0.8 arcseconds in diameter.
However, it may well be that the subtended disk is always approximately 0.8 arcseconds because the Earth-Saturn distance doesn't vary all that much. And, even assuming that the new wording gets made technically correct (by sorting out the closest/average/furthest question), I'm not particularly comfortable with this new wording, which is arguably not particularly relevant, especially as the old wording wasn't necessarily wrong (though arguably confusing, misleading, or distracting - as it has clearly distracted me).
So I'd like at least the chance to hear other opinions or other wordings before deciding whether or not to make any change. Tlhslobus ( talk) 03:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Add to Proposed_or_conceptual_missions?
http://pll.seti.org/?page_id=5
Kortoso ( talk) 16:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
After 10 years endeavors of NASA's Cassini spacecraft, the surface of this giant moon has been appeared. Several regions of this giant moon have been shown. Desert like expanses of sand dunes, hydrocarbon seas have been observed. Many photos have been taken as well. Please refer to this website for more information: [2] MansourJE ( talk) 08:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
MansourJE ( talk) 06:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Lot's of money were invested by NASA to seek for water on titan but life is not possible as we imagine on titan. Read more: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-life-saturn-moon-titan.html [Note/added s/: Mjesfahani ( talk) 01:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
References
If you must include that PhysOrg paper, then describe the extent/limit of their work: a hypothetical model of a membrane analog. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This article states that Titan is the only known natural satellite with a dense atmosphere. When I click on the link to 'natural satellite', I am told that moons (because they orbit planets) and planets (because they orbit stars) are 'natural satellites'.
So what's the deal? Is the article wrong about Titan being the only such body, and should be changed to say the only *moon*, or is the definition of 'natural satellite' in the other article wrong? I'm fairly certain Earth and Venus qualify as having 'dense atmospheres', and if they don't the gas giant worlds obviously do. I don't have the qualifications to know what the right answer is, but clearly something is messed up. 74.75.153.248 ( talk) 02:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
(7.3 times more massive atmosphere per unit surface)*(surface gravity 0.14g)=(surface pressure 1.02 times that of Earth's), not 1.45 times as it's stated in the section "Atmosphere". Something is wrong. ( Oleksiy.golubov ( talk) 13:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC))
@ JorisvS:, it doesn't help. I'm speaking of the most basic definition of pressure, P=F/S, and the expression of gravity force, F=mg. Whatever the gas law, the clouds, the composition, - nothing matters. Well, I can propose some mechanisms that will crash my argument, but they all are too exotic. (We must get forces additional to mg. Either centrifugal forces of rapidly rotating atmosphere, or alteration of g with height in a too thick atmosphere. Or we are outside equilibrium because the atmosphere is rapidly evaporating... Problems with averaging of these formulae due to height alterations are also possible, but very improbable as variations of height on Titan are minuscule.) I don't know what is wrong. The origin of the contradiction lies in Table 5.1 in p. 130 in Coustenis. We might want to check the mass of the atmosphere indicated in the table from independent sources. Oleksiy.golubov ( talk) 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Surface gravity is currently listed as (0.14 g) (0.85 Moons), however it's very prominently stated in the intro text that "Titan's diameter is 50% larger than Earth's natural satellite, the Moon, and it is 80% more massive". Other details also state that Titan's volume is (3.3 Moons) and its mass is (1.829 Moons).
How can it have more mass than The Moon, yet have less surface gravity? Is this a mistake or is there some piece I'm missing here? Jack insomniac1911 ( talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
What is "Ih" in the following (in sub section Cryovolcanism and mountains)?
It is not explained. -- Mortense ( talk) 22:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Battery-NOT-included-in-his-brain removed my bit on PSCs without reading it. This is a talk page pal, not you personal back yard. I put in several mistakes which you did not spot. This article is in a tug of war between several idiots who have no real knowledge on the subject of gravity nor geophysical fluid dynamics. Probably time to report it. 27.33.251.24 ( talk) 05:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
New paper mentions polyimine, which does exist, but has no Wiki article yet.
Is it any one of these:?
References
A few editors have done entries on the liquid-filled channels, causing repetition on the information. If a main editor can consolidate this info it will be appreciated, otherwise I will delete the redundancies. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 15:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking for more sources relating to the availability of oxygen—atomic, molecular, or in combination with other elements like oxide silicates etc.—on Titan?
With a serious and funded program now underway to develop (at scale) some interplanetary transport technology, the Interplanetary Transport System currently under development by SpaceX, and with Musk having already mentioned potential missions to Enceladus, Europa, and Pluto, am wondering what raw materials might be available for obtaining oxygen on Titan? N2e ( talk) 16:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
According to JPL, "By convention, mountains on Titan are named for mountains from Middle-earth, the fictional setting in fantasy novels by J.R.R. Tolkien" ( jpl.nasa.gov). I'm not sure where to put this little tidbit of information in the article, though. — Loadmaster ( talk) 15:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the article was written in a mixture of spelling dialects. This cannot be. Per this version it seems the article was written in American English. Per MOS:RETAIN it should therefore remain in this dialect unless a conscious decision was made to change it. -- John ( talk) 16:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADCITE I moved cites out of the lead. -- John ( talk) 19:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
"Titan is the only known moon with a significant atmosphere." What does that mean, a "significant atmosphere"? How high must the pressure be for an atmosphere to be significant? It is true that most moons only have a surface boundary exosphere at best, which can be ignored for most practical purposes. But Triton's atmosphere tells a different story. Its pressure of about 1.5 Pa is rather low, but at least measurable. It is dense enough for the nitrogen in it to behave like a gas. You can see the atmosphere at Triton's horizon. There are even clouds in it. Four things you can't say of the trace atoms surrounding our own Moon or Ganymede. I would definitely call that a significant atmosphere, however tenuous. Steinbach ( talk) 10:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
A much better picture of the lakes on Titan is now available from NASA. I would add this to the article, but I am a newbie and I don't know how to edit picture references. http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/spaceimages/details.php?id=PIA17655 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.158.48.17 ( talk) 14:39, 13 December 2013 (UTC)
Wouldn't the adjective "Titanian" collide with Titania (moon)?? Lanthanum-138 ( talk) 02:50, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
Not the last one, but the next one. Where, and when? 67.190.27.217 ( talk) 20:19, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
In a rare photo, the Cassini probe cameras were able to see through a thinner-than-usual cloud cover and take a picture of Titan with an unusually clear view of Kraken Mare, one of Titans largest hydrocarbon seas. This photo might be a good addition to the article. Being a NASA photo, if sourced from the original website, it would be a public domain, free use photo. http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/11/28/9074422-could-titans-seas-harbor-life 64.134.58.37 ( talk) 04:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)
March 25 might make a good day for front page presentation of this article. What do you think? It should be worth at least 5 points on WP:TFAR. Regards, RJH ( talk) 01:36, 24 December 2011 (UTC)
Well, some concerns:
&c. &c. Plus its getting cluttered up with images and the External links section is bloated. Regards, RJH ( talk) 15:54, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
Methinks this page be missin' a comma. I'm pretty sure that should say "...water, ice..." not "...water ice...". Not like Titan has Pepsi ice (ice made out of Pepsi, as opposed to ice made out of water) on it, LOL. (I noticed it has a lock on it, and I would correct it, but since I'm not registered, I wasn't sure if it would let me or not.) 98.71.131.44 ( talk) 05:50, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Neither this article nor the one on the probe explains why only one image of the surface was photographed. Was there a failure of the probe, or was the surface image simply a "bonus" after the landing? 68.146.70.177 ( talk) 05:21, 23 March 2012 (UTC)
It says: "Huygens in situ image from Titan's surface—the only image from the surface of an object farther away than Mars". Didn't NEAR return an image from the surface of Eros, or was it taken just a few meters above before the actual soft-landing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.98.140 ( talk) 21:08, 2 May 2014 (UTC)
The article is long as it is, so per WP:SUMMARY I am leaving the required summary and link to its main article: ATmosphere of Titan. DO not revert again without discussion and a logical purpose. Thank you. BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:42, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
Cheers,
On a related note, does anyone else not like the current structure, or does the current content summarise it enough for the layman? Serendi pod ous 21:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think so! This should be adjusted or removed. HammerFilmFan ( talk) 10:42, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
http://www.astronomy.com/news/2009/02/cassini-maps-global-pattern-of-titans-dunes
"At Titan there are very few clouds, so determining which way the wind blows is not an easy thing, but by tracking the direction in which Titan's sand dunes form, we get some insight into the global wind pattern," says Ralph Lorenz, Cassini radar scientist at Johns Hopkins University Applied Physics Laboratory in Laurel, Maryland. "Think of the dunes sort of like a weather vane, pointing us to the direction the winds are blowing." Kortoso ( talk) 23:57, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
Map data has been added for Titan in the miniwikiatlas for displaying geolocation data. I'm not sure how to add it or configure it, but I think that it would make a good addition to the page. Autocorr ( talk) 03:41, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
The article appears to lack any information on its formation and evolution. Surely there are some prominent theories. A recent article here http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/Giant_impact_scenario_may_explain_the_unusual_moons_of_Saturn_999.html suggests at least one that could be considered for inclusion. -- EvenGreenerFish ( talk) 02:21, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
Thanks to recent edits (to which, I hasten to add, I objected) the most interesting and defining characteristics of Titan (ie, its atmosphere and weather) are now barely discussed, while the most obscure and hypothetical speculations (ie, life) take up almost a quarter of its length. I think some kind of rebalancing is in order. Serendi pod ous 18:10, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
The caption of the surface image says: "[...] the only image from the surface of a planetary body farther away than Mars". Now I understand that Titan is essentially like a terrestrial planet except that it happens to orbit a gas giant and not the sun, and that distinctions between classes of astronomical objects such as (terrestrial) planet and satellite as well as gas giant and star are basically arbitrary and the boundaries fuzzy, with ambiguous cases known, but a planetary body is simply the same as a planet, and according to the well-known current (as well as older) definition of planet, Titan just isn't one. So this description irks me, even if I appreciate the intent. There are further instances where the term planetary is used in the article, but never referring as directly to Titan specifically. To repeat, it does make sense considering the physical characteristics of Titan, so I'm sympathetic and torn in this case (an admittedly minor issue), but astronomers still classify Titan as a satellite and very much not a "planetary body", even if in practice, Titan may be treated as essentially a planet or studied in the context of planetary science (which is sometimes called Lunar and Planetary Science to clarify that it does not exclusively cover planets, but that research concerning natural satellites is also in its scope). Is there a technically correct way to convey the intended idea in the caption? -- Florian Blaschke ( talk) 00:01, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
This could fit in, but I don't seem to be able to figure out where. :) Reh man 00:37, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
This sentence awkward because the reader does not grasp the meaning of "although" until the end:
I propose instead:
Titan has an axial tilt of 26.7 degrees, which is responsible for Titan having seasons. Yet the axial tilt in the info box says zero. This should be fixed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.199.155.29 ( talk) 17:15, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
The article currently states:
Composition data and transport models need to be substantiated, and per Occam's razor, a physical or chemical explanation is preferred a priori over one of biology (given the simplicity of chemical catalysts versus the complexity of biological forms).[citation needed]
The Occam's Razor claim seemed to me to be thoroughly dodgy (as in my admittedly limited experience most such claims seem to be), so I asked for a citation nearly 6 weeks ago. So far, none has been forthcoming.
Chris McKay's cited paper makes no mention of Occam. But in the discussion about the paper by 'Alliance members' at the current URL ( http://astronomy.nmsu.edu/tharriso/ast105/making_sense.php.html ), Occam does get mentioned once, by a Colin Robinson. Unusually, his use of Occam does not seem thoroughly dodgy: [catalysts + organisms] really is an inherently more complex explanation than [catalysts alone], provided we assume that the probability of catalysts and the probability of organisms are independant of each other. But Robinson is merely presenting Occam in order to reject it (he is presumably implicitly saying the two probabilities are not really independant of each other, though he doesn't use that terminology). And Mckay's reply makes no mention of Occam, and seems to be saying 'you may well be right'. Unlike our very different use of Occam, Robinson was clearly talking about the complexity of the explanation, whereas our use seems to substitute the complexity of the physics for the complexity of the explanation (which should be about the number of independent assumptions being made (and their probabilities), and not such things as the number of molecules required in the explanation).
So it seems to me that what we have here is OR (Original Research, which is banned by WP:OR) with no supporting citation 6 weeks after one was requested, and worse, Original Research that is probably wrong (given that when the matter is discussed by experts on the issue, Mckay and Robinson, they use Occam differently and reach a different conclusion).
So without a citation it should be removed, but the question is when. I could leave it for another 6 weeks or so. But I am concerned that I will then forget to remove it and it may hang around for years (as has happened elsewhere), while leaving the 'citation needed' request may also unnecessarily cause doubt in the reader's mind about the first half of the sentence (about composition data and transport models).
So I'm going to delete it now. But if anybody feels more time should be given for a citation to be found, please feel free to revert me, while preferably also indicating how much longer you think we should wait. Tlhslobus ( talk) 07:35, 15 May 2014 (UTC)
We currently say: Viewed from Earth, Titan reaches an angular distance of about 20 Saturn radii (just over 1,200,000 kilometres (750,000 mi)) from Saturn and subtends a disk 0.8 arcseconds in diameter.
But the more precise position seems likely to be something like: Viewed from any distance (and whether from Earth or elsewhere), Titan reaches an angular distance of about 20 Saturn radii (just over 1,200,000 kilometres (750,000 mi)) from Saturn, and, viewed from Earth when at its closest to (or furthest from? or average distance from?) Saturn, subtends a disk 0.8 arcseconds in diameter.
However, it may well be that the subtended disk is always approximately 0.8 arcseconds because the Earth-Saturn distance doesn't vary all that much. And, even assuming that the new wording gets made technically correct (by sorting out the closest/average/furthest question), I'm not particularly comfortable with this new wording, which is arguably not particularly relevant, especially as the old wording wasn't necessarily wrong (though arguably confusing, misleading, or distracting - as it has clearly distracted me).
So I'd like at least the chance to hear other opinions or other wordings before deciding whether or not to make any change. Tlhslobus ( talk) 03:06, 17 May 2014 (UTC)
Add to Proposed_or_conceptual_missions?
http://pll.seti.org/?page_id=5
Kortoso ( talk) 16:51, 21 July 2015 (UTC)
After 10 years endeavors of NASA's Cassini spacecraft, the surface of this giant moon has been appeared. Several regions of this giant moon have been shown. Desert like expanses of sand dunes, hydrocarbon seas have been observed. Many photos have been taken as well. Please refer to this website for more information: [2] MansourJE ( talk) 08:16, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
MansourJE ( talk) 06:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
Lot's of money were invested by NASA to seek for water on titan but life is not possible as we imagine on titan. Read more: http://phys.org/news/2015-02-life-saturn-moon-titan.html [Note/added s/: Mjesfahani ( talk) 01:06, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
References
If you must include that PhysOrg paper, then describe the extent/limit of their work: a hypothetical model of a membrane analog. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 17:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
This article states that Titan is the only known natural satellite with a dense atmosphere. When I click on the link to 'natural satellite', I am told that moons (because they orbit planets) and planets (because they orbit stars) are 'natural satellites'.
So what's the deal? Is the article wrong about Titan being the only such body, and should be changed to say the only *moon*, or is the definition of 'natural satellite' in the other article wrong? I'm fairly certain Earth and Venus qualify as having 'dense atmospheres', and if they don't the gas giant worlds obviously do. I don't have the qualifications to know what the right answer is, but clearly something is messed up. 74.75.153.248 ( talk) 02:29, 9 September 2016 (UTC)
(7.3 times more massive atmosphere per unit surface)*(surface gravity 0.14g)=(surface pressure 1.02 times that of Earth's), not 1.45 times as it's stated in the section "Atmosphere". Something is wrong. ( Oleksiy.golubov ( talk) 13:35, 27 July 2011 (UTC))
@ JorisvS:, it doesn't help. I'm speaking of the most basic definition of pressure, P=F/S, and the expression of gravity force, F=mg. Whatever the gas law, the clouds, the composition, - nothing matters. Well, I can propose some mechanisms that will crash my argument, but they all are too exotic. (We must get forces additional to mg. Either centrifugal forces of rapidly rotating atmosphere, or alteration of g with height in a too thick atmosphere. Or we are outside equilibrium because the atmosphere is rapidly evaporating... Problems with averaging of these formulae due to height alterations are also possible, but very improbable as variations of height on Titan are minuscule.) I don't know what is wrong. The origin of the contradiction lies in Table 5.1 in p. 130 in Coustenis. We might want to check the mass of the atmosphere indicated in the table from independent sources. Oleksiy.golubov ( talk) 14:54, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
Surface gravity is currently listed as (0.14 g) (0.85 Moons), however it's very prominently stated in the intro text that "Titan's diameter is 50% larger than Earth's natural satellite, the Moon, and it is 80% more massive". Other details also state that Titan's volume is (3.3 Moons) and its mass is (1.829 Moons).
How can it have more mass than The Moon, yet have less surface gravity? Is this a mistake or is there some piece I'm missing here? Jack insomniac1911 ( talk) 20:16, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
What is "Ih" in the following (in sub section Cryovolcanism and mountains)?
It is not explained. -- Mortense ( talk) 22:43, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
Battery-NOT-included-in-his-brain removed my bit on PSCs without reading it. This is a talk page pal, not you personal back yard. I put in several mistakes which you did not spot. This article is in a tug of war between several idiots who have no real knowledge on the subject of gravity nor geophysical fluid dynamics. Probably time to report it. 27.33.251.24 ( talk) 05:44, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 08:43, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
New paper mentions polyimine, which does exist, but has no Wiki article yet.
Is it any one of these:?
References
A few editors have done entries on the liquid-filled channels, causing repetition on the information. If a main editor can consolidate this info it will be appreciated, otherwise I will delete the redundancies. Cheers, BatteryIncluded ( talk) 15:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Looking for more sources relating to the availability of oxygen—atomic, molecular, or in combination with other elements like oxide silicates etc.—on Titan?
With a serious and funded program now underway to develop (at scale) some interplanetary transport technology, the Interplanetary Transport System currently under development by SpaceX, and with Musk having already mentioned potential missions to Enceladus, Europa, and Pluto, am wondering what raw materials might be available for obtaining oxygen on Titan? N2e ( talk) 16:25, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
According to JPL, "By convention, mountains on Titan are named for mountains from Middle-earth, the fictional setting in fantasy novels by J.R.R. Tolkien" ( jpl.nasa.gov). I'm not sure where to put this little tidbit of information in the article, though. — Loadmaster ( talk) 15:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I noticed the article was written in a mixture of spelling dialects. This cannot be. Per this version it seems the article was written in American English. Per MOS:RETAIN it should therefore remain in this dialect unless a conscious decision was made to change it. -- John ( talk) 16:26, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:LEADCITE I moved cites out of the lead. -- John ( talk) 19:09, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
"Titan is the only known moon with a significant atmosphere." What does that mean, a "significant atmosphere"? How high must the pressure be for an atmosphere to be significant? It is true that most moons only have a surface boundary exosphere at best, which can be ignored for most practical purposes. But Triton's atmosphere tells a different story. Its pressure of about 1.5 Pa is rather low, but at least measurable. It is dense enough for the nitrogen in it to behave like a gas. You can see the atmosphere at Triton's horizon. There are even clouds in it. Four things you can't say of the trace atoms surrounding our own Moon or Ganymede. I would definitely call that a significant atmosphere, however tenuous. Steinbach ( talk) 10:32, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 21:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 5 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 03:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 01:02, 7 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Titan (moon). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 18:52, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |