posted on Oct, 22 2013 @ 09:29 AM
I never said that Venus and Mars had solid cores. I said that their dynamos were not working...as in no convection. (I didn't actually say the no
convection part, but that's why.)
My apologies, I did not intend for that to come across as asserting you had said as much, I had merely hoped to use the examples of Mars and Venus
both having liquid portions of their cores and mantle (at least geologically 'fluid' anyway) as a way to demonstrate my disagreement with:
These tidal forces not only cause the ocean tides, but they also "work" the mantle keeping it hot and fluid.
Again, I never said that either. I said "mantle", not "core". It is my theory that by keeping this top layer of the mantle moving it
helps remove heat which helps maintain a steady convection which is critical to maintaining a working dynamo and possibly
preventing major crustal upheavals which would be devastating to life on Earth.
An error on my behalf, I had meant to say mantle. The perils of not re-reading your own posts more than once.
You are quite right to point out the absolute necessity of heat loss from the mantle in order to avoid massive volcanic catastrophes that would
certainly spell the end of all life on Earth. However the dynamo has nothing to do with the mantle (if I'm understanding you correctly), its
generation lies entirely within the outer core where the convection of liquid iron induces the magnetic field.
By the way may I just add that it's rather good we finally have a more 'general' discussion thread about the planets. Makes a change from all those
'is it a rock or not' threads that usually take up a large percentage of the space discussion on this site.
edit on 22/10/2013 by NoExpert
because: (no reason given)
edit on 22/10/2013 by NoExpert because: (no reason given)