Can anyone explain to me/offer theories about the magnetic fields of Venus and Mercury?
413916
Well there are alot of theories about why this occurs, however until we actually send some probes there to test the theories and find the right one, we are basically just making guesses. But probably the fact that Venus has a very slow rotational period which does not produce the dynamo effect is the reason. More about the magnetic field of Venus is here\nhttp://www-spc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/venus_mag/\n\nMercury probably still has a bit of a molten core\nhttp://www-spc.igpp.ucla.edu/personnel/russell/papers/merc_mag/\n\nBasically the theories don't explain everything we observe,\nDoes this mean the theories or science are wrong? No, it just probably means we are not taking everything into account. And that we have missed something. This is what makes science so interesting. We find discrepancies and we have to discover the reason. So we think about it, come up with new or modified theories, and then design tests to determine which are correct. This is what science is all about. Here is another website I found that explains a bit about it, enjoy.\nhttp://www.astronomynotes.com/solarsys/s7.htm
935070
Yes.  It is not strictly linear -- Venus has a far higher pressure than Earth does, even though its gravity is slightly less.  But generally it is true.  When you study Maxwell-Boltzmann statistics, you will learn why.  The chemical composition and temperature of the atmosphere are important factors.
22759
A permanent magnet uses ferromagnetism, which - in laymen's terms - is caused by a huge number small electromagnets in the form of unpaired electrons orbiting an atom. In permanent magnets, these elementary magnets are mostly oriented the same way.\n\nBy heating the permanent magnet, the atoms are excited into vibrations which may change the orientation of the elementary magnets. Rather than acting in concert, the magnets become randomly aligned if the permanent magnet is heated long enough.\n\n\nStars and planets generate magnetic fields in a different way.
900262
Actually, I believe there are only two.  Venus and Uranus.  However I don't know about our Kuiper belt cousins, so perhaps the answer is in one of them.  Venus has a three degree roatation, and Uranus an eighty-two degree rotation.
938567
Hi. On the surface it has quite a range. Venus is about 700 degrees, Neptune is cold. At the cores though there are all hot. I would guess about 1500-2000 F degrees on average.
788348
All highly speculative give our limited time recording history.\n\nHowever, loss of circulation in the core would lead to loss of magnetic shielding and heavy flux of solar wind. It is believed this will make life very difficult for surface dwellers. Since the field is now weakening and is expected to pass through a minimum within the next few thousand years, we won't have to wait for hundreds of millions of years to find out!\n\nAlso given what little history we know, we expect that a few really big geologic shocks are in store before the end and our civilization isn't likely to make it through those. i.e. we're F'd before any of the really long term (and hard to predict) ends come about
403307
Not Mars and DEFINITELY not Venus. Mars is too cold and has almost no oxygen. Venus it WAY WAY too hot, hot enough to melt lead, even hotter than Mercury due to a runaway greenhouse effect, and also has almost no oxygen. There is no planet that we know of (yet) that can support plant or animal life like we have on Earth. Maybe one will be discovered in another star system some time in the future, but there is no such planet in our own solar system, other than Earth.
1052897
Yes, there is a complex relationship.\n\nThe poles of the Earth's magnetic field actually change their locations across geological time.\n\nHowever, it's speculated that the Earth's magnetic field may be caused by a flow of liquid iron in the Earth's outer core, which might be affected in part, but not only, by Earth's rotation.
212109
Apparently there is believed to be none now, but there may have been in the past.  Here is a quote from the link below:\n\nObservations of the magnetic fields on Mars by the Mars Global Surveyor spacecraft have revealed that parts of the planet's crust has been magnetized. This magnetization has been compared to alternating bands found on the ocean floors of Earth. One interesting theory, published in 1999 and reexamined in October 2005 in a publication by the same group, is that these bands could be evidence of the past operation of plate tectonics on Mars. However, this has yet to be proven or widely accepted and remains an area of active research.
829728
As far as I am aware, there are none in the terrestrial sense, after the huge meteor impact that formed the Caloris Basin there were massive extrusions of flood lavas that formed the Smooth Plains...but these were 'seeps'.  The core of Mercury is thought to have only a small amount of magma which gives the planet it's magnetic field...but it is doubted that without the outside intervention of the major meteor strike that there would have been any lava flow at all.\n\nIt is also thought that seismic vibrations from the Caloris impact are what caused the hilly and furrowed terrain on the opposite side of the planet.\n\nIt is remarkably similar to our own moon in many respects, airless, crater impacted and causing tides on the sun, just as the moon causes tides in our oceans.
1179134
It would be so helpful if, when providing proof of something, there was actually a whit of truth to what you have to say.  Not only is most of what you've said untrue, it simply doesn't make sense.\n\nHowever, not being one to just say that and not back it up.\n\n1)  A planet sized comet wouldn't be generating a large magnetic field because comets are made of ice and (mostly carbonaceous) dust, two things which are most notably not magnetic.\n\n2)  No scientist worth his salt yet has indicated there's any evidence of massive "plasma scarring" on the surface of Mars, and if one did, it would be from plasma hitting the surface of Mars.  While the Sun and other stars are made out of the stuff, comets completely lack it and magnets don't create it, even if one magnetic field comes into alignment with another one, which brings us to...\n\n3)  Mars has no significant magnetic field.  It has a few magnetic patches on it where there is probably quite a bit of iron concentrated, but it's not magnetic in the least (as a whole planet, in the fashion of, say, the Earth).  It has no magnetic poles, either... and since you can't demagnetize an object with another magnetic field, it couldn't have ended up that way because another magnet "stripped off" it's magnetic field, and in any case you've said Mars absorbed all the energy... so it should be absolutely glowing on the magnetic front, and it isn't.\n\nSo, your theory is that an object which we know has no significant magnetic field (Mars) and an object which we know cannot have a magnetic field (a comet) got together and flipped magnetic poles which didn't exist when you said this event took place, in this massive magnetic tango that produced a product it could not have produced (plasma), that literally fired right through Mars like a gun and, even though it shot straight through the core from one non-existent magnetic pole through the other, didn't destroy the planet from the inside out, but left it completely in tact and just burned off the northern hemisphere, totally defying just about every one of the Laws of Physics God created the Universe to run on because, perfect being that He is, He was too incompetent to get it right the first time and needed to make a trial run which, as a compassionate and merciful God, He decided to burn to a crisp and roast alive every living thing on rather than allow to live on in peace once it had served His purposes, because He just didn't feel bothered to have them around any more.\n\nYou're right.  That's a freaking miracle.\n\n\nP.S.-- Craters naturally fill in from the center out because the edges of the crater are protected by the wall, leaving the center of the crater where dust can be most easily blown and settle, and there are dust storms on Mars.  Also, cooling cracks are very regular things, as the contracting matter pulls evenly away from the weakest point, most often causing the split to be very even and straight.  There's nothing about those features on Mars (or the shield volcanoes, for that matter) we haven't seen happen endless times on Earth-- and directly witnessed in other planetary bodies in the Solar System, which is why we know what made them.\n\nEdit:  All right, let's do this.  First, as for comets:\n\nhttp://www.windows.ucar.edu/cgi-bin/tour_def/comets/comets.html\n\nhttp://www.solarviews.com/eng/comet.htm\n\nhttp://solarsystem.nasa.gov/planets/profile.cfm?Object=Comets&Display=Kids\n\nEveryone from the sixth grade on but you seemed to learn in science class what comets were made of, and most of us quite a bit sooner.  They're made out of ICE and DUST.  Because of the severely black color of them and our analysis of the gases in the comet's coma (you know, that big gas cloud you see around the comet that, oddly, is made out of ice and dust), we're pretty darned sure a lot of that dust contains CARBON, so they're made
1090100
This can be answered very, very simply.\n\nRelativity works well in  in it's area of expertise, astronomy and space science.  Basically, the scientists took the answers (how the planets revolve around the Sun, the Mass of the planets and stars, how the stars and galaxies move) and created an elegant series of equations to explain them all.  They believed their equations to be correct because this is what they were observing, so it must be true right?\n\nWell no, as we built better telescopes we began witnessing objects and entire galaxies moving far too fast for their observed mass, defying the equations and defying gravity!  It wasn't light pressure robbing these celestial objects of a few arc seconds, which is what sprung Einstein to whop up Relativity.  Venus was so much of a mystery, but Einstein cracked it, right?\n\nWRONG!  If the atom doesn't fit, you must aquit!  Electromagnetic forces have been known to cause these very same effects we witness the galaxies doing.  If the astronomers can't explain something they see, they blame it on magnetics.  Double-helix galaxies, just like our DNA, are floating around out there.  That should tell you where you should start looking to explain the molecular and Universal connection.\n\nVenus' orbit is nearly a perfect circle, and it spins the other direction very slowly.  It used to be called the hairy planet, the smoky planet, and bearded planet.  It's latin name means morning star.  It was literally glowing!  I'm sure some electromagnetic stuff was going on with it, and that would help explain it's brand spanking new surface.\n\nhttp://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=AuzSsKSIJO_WapqWQB7tQcPsy6IX?qid=20060612222952AAFdmeo\n\nMars got blown the hell up.  That's a start on finding out about it right there, google should take you the rest of the way.  Hope this helped you understand why those two theories will never be united.  One of them, relativity, was based on a few wrong assumptions.
864858
click here for pictures:http://rds.yahoo.com/_ylt=A0geurgo7UxFTjkAcBtXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTE2bTQybGs2BGNvbG8DZQRsA1dTMQRwb3MDNQRzZWMDc3IEdnRpZANERlg1XzMw/SIG=12ka5eu89/EXP=1162755752/**http%3a//nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/photo_gallery/photogallery-venus.html\nhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venus_%28planet%29
619281
Yes magnets can be focused and intensified by using other magnets. when the moon gets closer to the earth, in its own orbit it causes larger than normal tides. Venus is too far away to have any affect. if it did the affects could pull earth out of it own orbit.
496198
venus is the love god and mars is the war god . in other words just from two totally different planets...
691419
No, that is only the *shortest* distance between them-when they are exactly lined up on the same side of the sun.  The maximum distance, which occurs with the exact same frequency as the closest, is when Earth and Venus are on  opposite sides of the sun, which is 1.723 AU.  The average distance would be somewhere between those two values, or about 1 AU, or 150 million km.  Think about the fact that Earth and Venus both rotate around the sun at different speeds-sometimes they are on opposite sides, far apart, and sometimes on the same side, close together..the important consideration is that they have different orbital times, so they don't stay close together any longer than they stay far apart.
523133
Earth's magnetic field, among other things.