trustme.bro/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim
The near side of the Moon differs in crustal thickness and density from the far side
the verdict
SUPPORTED
the evidence backs this
refutedsupported
the weight of evidence
3 sources for · 0 against

Peer-reviewed literature notes that the lunar near side and far side exhibit clear asymmetries in both crustal thickness and composition or density.

Evidence for · 3
2018 · cited by 17
Using viscoelastic mass spring model simulations to track heat distribution inside a tidally perturbed body, we measure the near/far side asymmetry of heating in the crust of a spin synchronous Moon in eccentric orbit about the Earth. With the young Moon within. 8 Earth radii of the Earth, we find that tidal heating per unit area in a lunar crustal shell is asymmetric due to the octupole order moment in the Earth's tidal field and is 10 to 20% higher on its near side than on its far side. Tidal heating reduces the crustal basal heat flux and the rate of magma ocean crystallization. Assuming that the local crustal growth rate depends on the local basal heat flux and the distribution of tidal heating in latitude and longitude, a heat conductivity model illustrates that a moderately asymmetric and growing lunar crust could maintain its near/far side thickness asymmetry but only while the Moon is near the Earth.
See more details
The analysis

rails:sufficiency:supported:for=2+1p:against=0+0p | v55:sufficiency

More for · 2
2024 · cited by 13
Research on returned samples can provide ground truth for the study of the geological evolution history of the Moon. However, previous missions all collected samples from the near side of the Moon, which is significantly different from the far side of the Moon in terms of the thickness of the lunar crust, magma activity, and composition. Therefore, the samples from the far side of the Moon are of great significance for a comprehensive understanding of the history of the Moon. China's Chang'e-6 (CE-6) probe has successfully landed on the lunar far side and will return samples in the coming days. With the precise location of the CE-6 landing site, a detailed analysis of the geological background is conducted in this research. The landing site of CE-6 is within the Apollo crater, which is inside the largest impact basin on the Moon, i.e., the South Pole-Aitken (SPA) basin. According to the numerical simulation of the formation process of the SPA basin, CE-6 landed at the edge of the SPA impact melting zone, which is presumably composed of impact melt of the lunar mantle. The Apollo crater subsequently excavated deep material again, which constitutes the basement of the CE-6 landing area. Later, erupted basalt covered these basement rocks, and they also constitute the main source of the CE-6 samples. Based on the dating method of crater size-frequency distribution, we find that the basalt is ∼2.50 Ga. The CE-6 samples also possibly contain basement rocks as excavated and ejected by craters, and they can provide crucial information for our understanding of lunar geological history along with the basalt samples.
2024 · cited by 8
Abstract Lunar mare basalts represent melting of mantle material, buoyant ascent in dikes, and eruption onto <20% of the surface. Global mare distribution is distinctly asymmetrical, with a paucity on the farside, plausibly interpreted to be related to thicker farside low‐density crust inhibiting buoyant magma rise to the surface. Challenging this hypothesis is the presence of the huge, ancient farside South Pole‐Aitken (SPA) basin, site of the thinnest crust and deepest depression observed on the Moon. We hypothesize that an oblique impact stripped the farside crust within the SPA basin, permitting early mare basalt emplacement as cryptomaria due to thin/absent crust. However, removal of the SPA thermally insulating megaregolith/crust accelerated lithosphere thickening beneath the basin. This deepening rheological barrier inhibited buoyant rise of mantle diapirs below SPA, resulting in early abatement of mare basalt extrusions compared to the nearside, and retention of the deep, underfilled SPA impact basin observed today.
This receipt carries no identity, shared or not. Sharing publishes your connection to it, not your data.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
trust me, bro: win the argument, pass the class, survive peer review.
This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work · Dispute this receipt