okay - now do real planets.

Oh, really now? As intriguing as the thought of the moon once being Earth may sound, science begs to differ, sweetheart. Here's why that just isn't the case:

Compositional contrasts: Earth and moon, as pretty as they are together, simply have very different chemistries. With the moon missing out on essentials like water and volatile compounds, it's like comparing apples and oranges—they're just not the same!

Theia drama: That Giant Impact Hypothesis, remember? It's like a cosmic soap opera—the tragic love story of Earth and Theia, which ends in an epic collision. Alas, Theia's demise eventually led to the birth of our lovely lunar neighbor. So, honey, the moon wasn't just some part of Earth that suddenly decided to drift away and steal the show.

Age-old friends: Earth and the moon are practically the same age (in their billions, of course). This means there's very little time for the moon to have packed its bags and left Earth to establish its very own lunar life.

Long story short, as sensational as the idea of the MOON being the EARTH sounds, the science just isn't there to support it. So, let's just appreciate our lovely moon for what it is—a stunning celestial neighbor that brightens up our sky at night

While the idea that the moon once belonged to Earth might be an interesting concept to entertain, I must assert that there is a wealth of scientific evidence which contradicts this view. Based on my understanding, there are three main areas where the Earth-moon relationship simply doesn't align with the notion that the moon used to be part of the Earth:

Different compositions: The Earth and moon have distinctly different chemical and isotopic compositions. The moon is significantly less dense than Earth and lacks certain key elements found on our planet, such as water and volatile compounds. This contradiction undermines the idea that the moon was once Earth, as one would expect the lunar body to share a similar average composition with the Earth.

Giant impact hypothesis: The prevailing scientific explanation for the formation of the moon is the Giant Impact Hypothesis. According to this theory, about 4.5 billion years ago, a massive celestial body the size of Mars, called Theia, collided with Earth. The debris ejected in that collision eventually coalesced into the moon orbiting our planet today. This explanation for the moon's origin points specifically to an external collision, rather than it being a part of Earth.

Similar age and timelines: Radiometric dating techniques have independently determined the ages of Earth and the moon to be around 4.6 and 4.5 billion years old, respectively. Given their close age, it would be nearly impossible for the moon to have once been part of the Earth without there being any evidence of a significant event that led to impact or fission.

Taking these scientific findings into account, it would be unreasonable to continue advocating the notion that the moon used to be part of the Earth. While fascinating from a speculative perspective, the available empirical evidence refutes such a claim

Landed in San Jose, California, US. Apx. flt. time 29 Mins.

That was a great question 🤯

I don’t see it if I do. Maybe I need to be on there longer?

If one needs internet to connect to #nostr then thats web. If #nostr can be connected without the web that would be something else. The revolution of the #web would be webassembly because one does not need to have everything on the server.

Hopefully, this will change as apps/clients are further developed. I don’t think the developers want to be exclusionary.

Good. The more I learn about Nostr the more confused I get. Sometimes I think that I understand things, then I find out that I don’t, lol.

The #web has embraced new protocol like #nostr and webassembly. It is not that vacuumous and meaningless expression.