The surface temperature of Titan?

John T · #1 (**permalink**) 14-November-2004, 11:27 PM

Hi all,

Dear ladies and gentlemen,

I am quite serious in what I am about to purport, because I do have "evidence" based on what it is I am about to say.

Initially, I was not too sure where to post this idea, but as no doubt many of you may already know (and indeed for my own reasons etc), I have deduced that the surface temperature of Titan will be "hot" or at least "warm", when otherwise compared to existing theories etc that describe "oceans of methane" at minus 175 degs K.

The Cassini probe will prove this, one way or the other.

To my knowledge, I am the first to suggest this idea (as mentioned some months ago, albeit on the Planet X site...for which Phil Plait quite correctly pointed out otherwise...which is to say...the wrong site etc!)

Be that as it may, for sure in my understanding, Titan will be found to be quite "hot" and that horrendous lightning bolts etc will be the order of the day.

Cheers

John

R.A.F. · #2 (**permalink**) 14-November-2004, 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

I have deduced that the surface temperature of Titan will be "hot" or at least "warm", when otherwise compared to existing theories etc that describe "oceans of methane" at minus 175 degs K.

The Cassini probe will prove this, one way or the other.

What reasoning did you used to come up with this "warm" idea?...anyway, we'll soon know what the conditions on Titan actually are.

Added...When you say "warm", exactly how much warmer than -175K are you talking about?

Edited once to try and clarify what I was saying...it didn't work.

John T · #3 (**permalink**) 14-November-2004, 11:56 PM

R.A.F wrote:

> "And you basis for this is what exactly?...anyway, we'll soon know what the conditions on Titan actually are."

With respect, why should I tell you?

> "Added...When you say "warm", exactly how much warmer than -175K are you talking about?"

Conservatively speaking, around 200-300 degs F

Cheers,

John

frogesque · #4 (**permalink**) 15-November-2004, 12:11 AM

The Kelvin temperature scale starts at absolute zero. Minus 175 degrees Kelvin is meaningless.

Link

R.A.F. · #5 (**permalink**) 15-November-2004, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

With respect, why should I tell you?

With respect...because it would be the polite thing to do...

Quote:

Conservatively speaking, around 200-300 degs F

Very good, John...you've now made a "testable" prediction. Now all we have to do is wait and see...

R.A.F. · #6 (**permalink**) 15-November-2004, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogesque

The Kelvin temperature scale starts at absolute zero. Minus 175 degrees Kelvin is meaningless.

Link

DOH!!!

ops:

frogesque · #7 (**permalink**) 15-November-2004, 12:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

R.A.F wrote:

> "And you basis for this is what exactly?...anyway, we'll soon know what the conditions on Titan actually are."

With respect, why should I tell you?

> "Added...When you say "warm", exactly how much warmer than -175K are you talking about?"

Conservatively speaking, around 200-300 degs F

Cheers,

John

John T. Please be very carefull when describing temperatures. The Kelvin scale and the Farenheight scale are NOT directly compatible. A one degree increment on the Kelvin scale is equivalent to a one degree increment on the Centigrade scale. A one degree increment on the Rankin scale is the same as a one degree increment on the Farenheight scale. Both zero Kelvin and zero Rankin represent the concept of absolute zero and start at 0. To convert from Kelvin to Rankin use the conversion 9/5, thus 175K = 315R. If you mean Titan is about 300 deg Rankin then you are not too far adrift from current mainstream thinking. However if you do in fact mean 300F then that sort of temperature will cook a pizza quite nicely and would be considered hot in most places on Earth's surface.

Wolverine · #8 (**permalink**) 15-November-2004, 01:50 AM

Deja vu.

frogesque · #9 (**permalink**) 15-November-2004, 02:20 AM

Ah! Thanks Wolverine, I don't normally read PX - I read every post on that thread and now I know why!

Bozola · #10 (**permalink**) 15-November-2004, 02:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wolverine

Deja vu.

Ha!

Quote:

Conservatively speaking, around 200-300 degs F
Cheers,
John T

Funny thing, isn't it? The surface has already been mapped by IR. So, besides a dinosaur being small at one end, big in the middle, and small at the other end, what is your evidence for this?

R.A.F. · #11 (**permalink**) 15-November-2004, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

With respect, why should I tell you?

Thanks to Wolverine's link, I now have a better answer for you John...

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

I am not playing games at all!

Yes, you are.

You start a thread (in the wrong forum, unless you do mean to invoke PX here; more on that in a moment), with no specifics, except a vague prediction. When called on it, you play games. You avoid giving a real number for several posts. You refuse to give an explanation, saying it is too long and not relevant here, in a forum devoted to astronomy. You've behaved ina similar manner in other threads too.

Well, I'm calling you on this. State your claim here, and back it up. I won't allow these sorts of word games here. If you have a hypothesis, now's your chance. Write it out.

And about PX... if that's part of your theory, even tangentially, you didn't say why. You were called on it, and you still avoided the question. I have seen you do this multiple times, and I've had enough. This is in the FAQ; read it.

As for the science: if Titan's temperature were as high as you claim, it would have been known quite some time ago. The infrared images taken by Keck and other telescopes contradict your claims directly. If not, you'll need to state why, specifically, in your hypothesis.

I strongly urge you to do this. This is your last chance.

...So, John, The reason you should "tell me", is that if you don't tell me now, you "might not" have an opportunity to tell me later.

Thanks a lot for that link, Wolverine...I "somehow" missed that thread.

ops:

John T · #12 (**permalink**) 16-November-2004, 12:41 AM

Look, don't you guys understand what it is I am saying!!?

Obviously not.

All Dr. Phil Plait is doing (and I do respect the man), is regurgitating what it is he has "learned" with his "advanced degree" thing.

This means he apparently "knows" what it is all about.

Sorry, not necessarily so.

So who is playing games?

Not me, for sure.

Cheers,

John

Wolverine · #13 (**permalink**) 16-November-2004, 12:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by R.A.F.

Thanks a lot for that link, Wolverine...I "somehow" missed that thread.

ops:

This came to mind also, just in case you missed it. (Not trying to single out anyone or be rude, just providing some contextual perspective for those who may have missed the aforementioned.)

Van Rijn · #14 (**permalink**) 16-November-2004, 01:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

Look, don't you guys understand what it is I am saying!!?

You are saying Titan is impossibly hot.

Quote:

All Dr. Phil Plait is doing (and I do respect the man), is regurgitating what it is he has "learned" with his "advanced degree" thing.

Certainaly, he is using what he has "learned" using a couple of concepts called "evidence" and "science." If Titan was 200-300F it would stand out like a sore thumb. It doesn't take an '"advanced degree" thing' to see that.

Quote:

So who is playing games?

Not me, for sure.

Making outrageous claims without backing them up in any way, then acting snippy when other ask you reasonable questions is a very childish game. Looking over the previous threads, this isn't the first time you did this. If you want to change this, start backing up your claims.

Bozola · #15 (**permalink**) 16-November-2004, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

Look, don't you guys understand what it is I am saying!!?

Obviously not.

Considering that you said

Quote:

Conservatively speaking, around 200-300 degs F

This is far hotter than Earth. This is almost hot enough to toast a cheese sandwich.

However, all IR emission spectra indicate that the surface temperature to be around 90 degrees kelvin, meaning that you are saying that there is a 300 degree kelvin error, conservatively speaking.

So, considering every piece of data have confirmed that you can't get your cheese sandwich toasted on the surface of Titan, you claim, without providing any data, much less any argument supporting your position, that all of these observations are incorrect.

Perhaps we don't understand what you are saying, no. Would you care to elaborate.

Quote:

All Dr. Phil Plait is doing (and I do respect the man), is regurgitating what it is he has "learned" with his "advanced degree" thing.

I bet Phil can get a toasted cheese sandwich when he wants one; even without regurgitating.

R.A.F. · #16 (**permalink**) 16-November-2004, 05:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

All Dr. Phil Plait is doing (and I do respect the man)...

Obviously your definition of respect, is different from my definition of respect.

Quote:

...is regurgitating what it is he has "learned" with his "advanced degree" thing.

Just how is it "regurgitating" when he has studied the evidence objectively, and reached a sound, rational conclusion???

Quote:

This means he apparently "knows" what it is all about.

Why, yes, the BA does know how to evaluate evidence...that's what makes him a good scientist.

Quote:

Sorry, not necessarily so.

...and your proof of this, is???

Quote:

So who is playing games?
Not me, for sure.

It's become obvious "who's" doing "what" here...

John T · #17 (**permalink**) 17-November-2004, 12:00 AM

Perhaps, just let us wait and see!

Anyway, as I have stated earlier (and I think some of you guys may have misunderstood me.)

Of course I have respect for the B.A. because anyone, indeed whoever they may be in whatever subject, who has studied their subjects so very hard over many years and then gained the highest qualification, is well worthy of the adorned qualification.

I do not have a problem with that.

However I do ask a question:

Wherein lies the truth?

Cheers

frogesque · #18 (**permalink**) 17-November-2004, 12:17 AM

John T wrote:

Quote:

........
However I do ask a question:

Wherein lies the truth?

Here

Van Rijn · #19 (**permalink**) 17-November-2004, 01:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by frogesque

John T wrote:

Quote:

........
However I do ask a question:

Wherein lies the truth?

Here

Very good! =D> You managed to answer an unanswerable question.

I knew it was too much to expect John T to actually explain himself. Ah, well.

AGN Fuel · #20 (**permalink**) 17-November-2004, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

Of course I have respect for the B.A. because anyone, indeed whoever they may be in whatever subject, who has studied their subjects so very hard over many years and then gained the highest qualification, is well worthy of the adorned qualification.

I do not have a problem with that.

You say this, yet you also say;

Quote:

All Dr. Phil Plait is doing....is regurgitating what it is he has "learned" with his "advanced degree" thing.

This does not sound like respect. This sounds like a dismissal of the BA's opinion based on an accusation of rote learning.

Objective analysis of the IR signature of the planet does not support your hypothesis that the Titan is heated to a couple of hundred degrees fahrenheit. If you want us to take your idea seriously, then we need to have something to hang our hat on - something that recognises the objective data on record but provides a different interpretation to that data.

If you fail to provide this, please do not object when we fail to take you seriously.

Quote:

However I do ask a question:

Wherein lies the truth?

Cheers

Well, frankly, my vote would be in the data at this point.

Evan · #21 (**permalink**) 17-November-2004, 07:30 AM

Quote:

Perhaps, just let us wait and see!

Since we already know the surface temperature of Titan just what are we waiting for?

The Bad Astronomer · #22 (**permalink**) 22-November-2004, 01:40 AM

JohnT, with due respect, I have already warned you once, specifically, about making vague statements and then not backing them up. In this thread, you were asked specifically -- again-- to back it up, and you said "Why should I tell you?".

To be blunt, that's a banning offense. But I will give you another chance, and just one. Back up this claim. Got it?

Excelsior · #23 (**permalink**) 22-November-2004, 12:00 PM

Well Titan is very far away from the sun. There is no way it receives enough radiation to make it that hot. And this is a fact supported by IR observations.

Maksutov · #24 (**permalink**) 22-November-2004, 12:46 PM

Well, here we go again with JohnT and his evasive tactics. Check out the details of Wolverine's link, especially the last few posts concerning the "Flood". JohnT's apparently just another biblical believer trying to bend objective evidence to fit his particular peculiar speculation.

Wake me up when he's gone.

Moose · #25 (**permalink**) 22-November-2004, 12:59 PM

Yeah, that was my first thought upon seeing John T's prediction: "How much IR is Titan putting out anyway? That should be a pretty fair indication of Titan's likely surface temp."

Assuming for a moment that John T has anything to support his hypothesis (which, for the record, I doubt), he'll have to find away to explain the IR data.

Diamond · #26 (**permalink**) 24-November-2004, 12:09 AM

I know what the 'T' in 'John T' stands for...

John T · #27 (**permalink**) 27-November-2004, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Bad Astronomer

JohnT, with due respect, I have already warned you once, specifically, about making vague statements and then not backing them up. In this thread, you were asked specifically -- again-- to back it up, and you said "Why should I tell you?".

To be blunt, that's a banning offense. But I will give you another chance, and just one. Back up this claim. Got it?

Dear B.A.

A "banning offence"! ??

Why should you even consider banning me?

What is so wrong with what it is I have purported?

You then go on to accuse me of making "vague statements" and "not backing them up"

I have backed up my claims in a number of previous posts, but they were subsequently completely rejected (quite out of hand in my view), based on current mainstream "accepted" theories etc (but I expected that)

Talking about vagueness, I can assure you there is nothing more "vague" to my mind than the peculiar notion of there actually being Black Holes etc.

With regard to Titan, let us wait until January 14th next year.

Then we can do the math etc.

Cheers,

John

Van Rijn · #28 (**permalink**) 28-November-2004, 01:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John T

Why should you even consider banning me?

See:
http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/faq.php#1

Quote:

What is so wrong with what it is I have purported?

Is this a serious question? You make provocative statements, but you seem to be incapable of giving a straight answer to simple questions about those statements.

Quote:

I have backed up my claims in a number of previous posts, but they were subsequently completely rejected (quite out of hand in my view), based on current mainstream "accepted" theories etc (but I expected that)

And you couldn't, just possibly, refresh those of us that didn't see all those earlier discussions? I did see some of the discussion, and I never saw a rationalization of any kind for your statements.

Quote:

Talking about vagueness, I can assure you there is nothing more "vague" to my mind than the peculiar notion of there actually being Black Holes etc.

Another provocative statement completely irrelevent to the current subject.

Quote:

With regard to Titan, let us wait until January 14th next year.

Which makes me wonder, if you won't accept all the data we have already, why would you accept the data from the Huygens probe? Not that I expect you to answer that question either.

Excelsior · #29 (**permalink**) 28-November-2004, 07:45 AM

Quote:

I have backed up my claims in a number of previous posts, but they were subsequently completely rejected (quite out of hand in my view), based on current mainstream "accepted" theories etc (but I expected that)

Dont recall that happening... got a link ? Maybe you should repost your evidence now in this thread.

Evan · #30 (**permalink**) 28-November-2004, 07:48 AM

Waste of time VR when you are dealing with a troll...

Why is it that astronomy attracts so many kukoos?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode