Talk:Lunar mare

I have removed the following:

"This bias of distribution is thought to have assisted in the tidal locking of the Moon's rotation to its orbit (the phenomenon whereby the Moon spins on its axis in the same timespan as it takes to orbit the Earth). This results in only one side of the Moon being visible from the Earth (excepting some small leeway from libration). The reason the maria have assisted in tidal locking is that they are denser than much of the rest of the surface and are therefore more strongly attracted towards the Earth by gravity. Over many eons, the Moon's rotation has slowed so that the heaviest side of the Moon with the maria on it faces constantly towards the Earth."

This is wrong for several reasons. First, gravitationally, the lunar orientation is just as stable in its current configuration as in a state where it is rotated by 180 degrees. This means that it is only by chance that the mare basalts are predominantly on the hemisphere that faces the Earth. Second, tidal despinning occurs only because of the spherical harmonic degree two gravitational field (this is simply a triaxial ellipsoid in shape). It can be shown that the mare basalts make little to no contribution to the current degree-2 gravitational field of the Moon.

Mark Wieczorek Oct 29, 2006

I do not believe the maria are predominantly on the Earth-side of the moon by chance, but the explanation you (rightly) removed reverses cause and effect: the side of the Moon facing the Earth had a thinner crust due to tidal effects, and so lava could break through more easily and from the maria. This is my understanding of it, at least. --ScottAlanHill 07:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

As a geophysicist, I have searched in vain long and hard for a mechanism by which tidal forces could redistribute materials from one hemisphere of the Moon to another. Of course, the possibility exists that tidal effects somehow caused primordial crustal thickness variations during crystallization of the magma ocean, but the mechanism is at this point unknown.-- Lunokhod 10:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)Reply

This is discussed in the astronomy textbook I'm teaching out of, so if it's wrong I'd like to know. The theory is that the mantle is slightly offset with respect to the crust, due to the gravitational influence of the Earth. (I'm not sure it could be considered a tidal effect, as I said above.) The mantle is supposed to be slightly closer to the Earth, so that the crust on the "front" of the moon is thinner than on the back, which made it easier for lava to escape. (Is the thickness variation true?) I guess I don't understand exactly how that was supposed to work, either: if we consider the crust and the mantle as being two independent spheres orbiting at the same speed, the radius of their motion should be independent of their mass and density. Centrifugal force would actually result in heavier materials moving away from the center (naively considering the example of the centrifuge). --ScottAlanHill 22:40, 1 November 2006 (UTC)Reply

As an astrophysicist I have no idea why the magma is all this side but I do know that the most likely reason why all the large impact features are on the earth side is because they are the result of secondary impacts from asteroids that struck earth billions of years ago. Like Phobos is battered with strings of impacts from the ejecta of martian impacts, it is likely the Moon suffered the same bombardment. Soloist (talk) 11:15, 21 April 2009 (UTC)Reply

The article gives the pronunciation of mare but not maria; I tend to use MAH-ria, but I can also imagine saying it mah-REE-ah like the woman's name (and certainly this is acceptable Latin pronunciation, cf Ave Maria). Which is it?

The stress is on the "ma". The name Maria is of a completely different origin. Lesgles (talk) 03:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)Reply

The Moon article contains the statement:

Maria are found almost exclusively on the near side of the Moon, covering 31% of the surface on the near side,[43] compared with a few scattered patches on the far side covering only 2%.[44] This is thought to be due to a concentration of heat-producing elements under the crust on the near side, seen on geochemical maps obtained by Lunar Prospector's gamma-ray spectrometer, which would have caused the underlying mantle to heat up, partially melt, rise to the surface and erupt.[30][45][46]

This appears to contradict the statement in this article, Distribution section part 4, and possibly the discussion on tidal locking above. I know little about the subject - which is right? Chris55 (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)Reply

The Distribution of mare basalts section seems to be quite argumentative, especially during the following section:

[Note: current data in fact may not preclude this, although the timing and length of mare volcanism in a number of basins cast some doubt on it. Initial mare volcanism generally seems to have begun within 100 million years of basin formation.[4] Although these authors felt that 100 million years was sufficiently long that a correlation between impact and volcanism seemed unlikely, there are problems with this argument. The impacts that created the basins are not necessarily as precisely dated as the basalts (the authors mix older K-Ar and Rb-Sr dates, and whole rock with individual crystal dates, and absolute dates (radiometric) with much more subjective relative dating (correlation based on spectral characteristics, crater counts) in a way that does not preclude uncertainties on the order of tens or of millions of years or more. The authors also point out that the oldest and deepest basalts in each basin are likely buried and inaccessible (sampling bias). Some of the basalts that contribute to a "long history of eruption" in a particular basin came from a separate basin. So the question of a connection between impacts and basalt eruption seems an open one. Large igneous provinces on earth that were once thought to span tens or hundreds of millions of years are now known to have mainly erupted in less than few million years at most, with the vast bulk of activity spanning less than one or two million years in most cases.]

I thought that Wikipedia wasn't supposed to have stuff like this in the articles, but I would like some advice before I make any changes. 5donuts (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

I thought the same thing, so I've commented out two sections of this passage. They smell strongly of original research which is, indeed, not welcome on Wikipedia. It's possible they have been documented elsewhere, but in keeping with Wikipedia's verifiability policy they need to come from a reliable source which should then be cited. Hairy Dude (talk) 11:45, 24 February 2015 (UTC)Reply

Please could our resident experts include information about S-type (red) and T-type (blue) basalts. Cheers. nagualdesign (talk) 08:54, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

I've seen both of these words used to describe the plural of mare, but which one is correct? 5donuts (talk) 19:16, 4 February 2014 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lunar mare. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111218085633/http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunar_atlases/ to http://www.lpi.usra.edu/resources/lunar_atlases/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

 Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)Reply

Mention lunar "Borders of the oceans" or lack thereof. Jidanni (talk) 23:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

Looking at the full Moon one sees a map of Africa. It's true!

Therefore please add a section discussing how does that Africa's size compare with the real Africa?

 OK, with Mare Crisium (176,000 km2) corresponding to Madagascar (592,800 km2), and Mare Nubium corresponding to Liberia, using Google Earth's ruler tool we find the line connecting them on Earth is 7000 km., vs. 2500 km. on the Moon! I.e., I may see a map of Africa on the Moon, but real Africa is three times wider. Jidanni (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2021 (UTC)Reply

I think the standard view of how the maria formed was from magma migrating up through fractures in the moon's crust. These fractures were likely caused by the asteroid impact that created the basin into which the basaltic lavas flowed. Impact cratering on the lunar farside has nothing to do with it. I would double check the reference. Schaffman (talk) 15:44, 14 March 2023 (UTC)Reply

I agree. I was using this to remind me of the names of the maria and noticed that sentence as well. I haven't personally read the source, but the author is a paleontologist and biologist. Not to call to authority, but I believe there are plenty of sources available from actual experts in the field that contradict this one. I'm going to check back in a few weeks to see if the editors have decided to make the change yet and do it myself if not. 47.200.17.158 (talk) 09:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also agree. The statement raised a red flag with me and I searched in vain for any corroborating sources. The sentence used to read simply "formed by ancient volcanic eruptions". That may be good enough, or something like, "in which lava flowed through cracks into impact basins" could be added. A good source reference would be nice. Assambrew (talk) 20:36, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I have changed the lead sentence to reflect the apparent mainstream view, feel free to alter or add sources. Assambrew (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Well, now I see that the article Moon has a similar statement about far side impacts forming the maria. I have started a discussion on that talk page, feel free to weigh in. Assambrew (talk) 22:40, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

The top section where a citation is missing is copying nearly directly from the BBC Sky at Night https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/lunar-maria-guide-list-seas-moon 2601:643:8D00:69B0:EDF2:9AD8:30A2:1DE0 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2024 (UTC)Reply

I don't see anything easily actionable. Copyright detector tool. If you want you can take a stab at cleaning it up, or post at WT:CP to try to recruit expert help. –Novem Linguae (talk) 05:52, 3 July 2024 (UTC)Reply