Some scientists believe that the black holes are doors to new realms

Jump to Last Post 1-32 of 32 discussions (101 posts)

59
illogical pineposted 13 years ago
I wonder if it is true (
reply report
1. 59
  bsscorpio8posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How would they KNOW for sure? It is purely speculative.
  reply report
2. 60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  A scientist who understands General Relativity will know anything that gets too near a black hole will be spaghettified with most all the properties of matter in it squished out of existence and never escaping it's gravity.
  
  Is that the realm other scientists wonder about?
  reply report
  59
  bsscorpio8posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The realm of nothingness!
  reply report
  62
  pisean282311posted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ..
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  actually they are debunking the concept of singularities. Inside a black hole is another version of the same universe.
  
  http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/w … 30917.html
  
  the math holds though.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, I don't get my info from pop sci websites or from pop sci writers who are not scientists.
  reply report
3. 65
  RKHenryposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Only if......
  reply report
4. 61
  Shahid Bukhariposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Scientists ... Do you mean Theoretical Physicists ... ?
  reply report
5. 49
  munirahmadmughalposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  munirahmadmughal
  
  They believe and you wonder. Both have the right to do so. Who is correct will be judged by logic, reason, consistency, and proof by evidence (admissible, relevant and true). Scope for wonder is lesser as the scientists are after the truth and reality and they do not speak unless they have undergone many test and trials. When man is the crown creation and creator has blessed him with all the faculties to explore the hidden treasures of things not unknown and idea thrown by the scientists should not be seen as causing wonder, rather it should be wonderful.
  reply report
59
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
I am going to attempt to post a pic of:

"A Visual Representation of the Theory of Parallel Universes."

This may take awhile, so please be patient.
reply report
74
Richieb799posted 13 years ago
It falls into the same category as the 'hidden world at the centre of the earth' categories
reply report
1. 59
  optimus grimlockposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  the center of the earth theory is trippy when you think about it. How many people have been to the poles 100 or so and how many of those people explored more then a couple miles.
  reply report
0
WizardOfOzposted 13 years ago
its true. I went for a ride through a black hole.
reply report
59
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Here comes my first attempt. It is a .gov pic. So go for it as far as saving it is concerned.
reply report
56
leebertteaposted 13 years ago
I got into a black hole once and though it was a new relm for me it felt like the same old same old.
reply report
0
WizardOfOzposted 13 years ago
did I say black hole. I meant K hole. sorry, my bad.
reply report
59
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Preview does not show. So here is first shot.

<img src="http://s1.hubimg.com/u/3355248_f520.jpg" style="display: none;" border="0" height="100%" width="100%">
reply report
59
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
2nd attempt:

<p align="center"><img src="http://s1.hubimg.com/u/3355248_f520.jpg" width="100%" >
A Visual Representation of the Theory of Parallel Universes.</p>
reply report
59
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
Third...

reply report
59
paradigmsearchposted 13 years ago
I’m sorry about amateur hour. Am living and learning.
reply report
63
ceciliabeltranposted 13 years ago
well there is mathematical basis...so what's in the equation is out there in the universe in some form. You can believe it. Doesn't mean you'll live to see it though.
reply report
89
Len Cannonposted 13 years ago
Some is not a lot, though.
reply report
1. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  its not about how many. it's about who got it. You could be one scientist and if you prove to be right while all the rest are wrong, well you're right.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Exactly, just like when Einstein came up with General Relativity.
  reply report
  0
  WizardOfOzposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Like Einstein. And, nobody else. Funny thing this science
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  and Benoit Mandelbroth and Pascal and any other mind that changed the way we think of reality...that includes capernicus and ptolemy as well as Johanes Kepler.
  reply report
  0
  WizardOfOzposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Until you're wrong.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  you're long dead by then
  reply report
59
Daniel J. Neumannposted 13 years ago
If they never find a white hole, then it's likely it does lead somewhere.
reply report
67
ss snehposted 13 years ago
Hi!

Singularity theorems and many world theorems are not science but hypothesizes that are yet to be proved practically.

These are just interpretations of some partial equations which are not complete and hence don't describe reality.

It's better we treat such hypothesizes that can never be proved as some intellectually stimulating science fiction.

A scientist's belief in a mathematical equation doesn't make science. -- Thanks
reply report
1. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Really, your stand is not to bother. Then lets all pack our bags and go home then.
  
  General Relativity was just proven this year and at the time, they didn't know how to prove it. You need a theory to devise an experiment. Theories are there to be tested. You can't have knowledge without working knowledge.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is incorrect. General Relativity was shown to be dead accurate back in 1919 with the perihelion precession of Mercury and later with the deflection of light during a total eclipse. Please try to do your homework before making false claims.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  General Relativity is still not "dead accurate" to this very day. Which is shown by your own equation. Looks like you have a lot of homework to do Mr. Einstein.
  
  [img]http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/einstein.gif[/img]
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It is hilarious to me that people who read books about science think they have command on e subject matter.Newsflash if its in a book it is atleast 2 years old.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What's funnier are those who pretend to know what they're talking about.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is dead accurate. This has been verified by experimentation. To date, no experiment has yet falsified it.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Verified using assumptions in the Tensor equation to conduct the experiments. Keep studying..
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I have no idea what you're talking about. What does my study have to do with anything, or is that an ad hom in place of something to say?
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Ad hom in place of something to say? I now realize you really do not have an idea of what I'm talking about or TGR. As long as you believe it's true, that's all that matters.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That is precisely the problem. It would have to do with the fact that you are not communicating in any known fashion that would allow others to understand what it is you're talking about. You never explain yourself.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I would think that someone who writes about acknowledging the validity of TGR, would be able to converse about the fundamental equations that support the Theory. I was obviously wrong, sorry to confuse you. Study your equations and maybe we can "communicate" one day. LOL
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Once again, you do not explain yourself. What is TGR? I am talking about General Relativity, what are you talking about? Are you just trolling?
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What else is there to explain Theory of General Relativity TGR. I guess that is another thing I assumed some one writing about the Theory would understand. It seems you are the one trolling. LOL.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It needs to be explained because TGR is not used when talking about General Relativity. Sorry.
  
  I've seen nothing in any of your posts or hubs that would indicate you knew anything about General Relativity or science. Your use of TGR would cinch that conclusion.
  
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Sorry, but it is referred to as TGR all the time
  
  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=THEORY+OF+GENERAL+RELATIVITY+TGR
  
  http://lmgtfy.com/?q=GENERAL+RELATIVITY
  
  I can definitely say the same for you as well, Having Cod For After Dinner. LOL
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I noticed that in the first link you provided, few if any sites with "Theory of General Relativity" came up but the latter one showed many sites that came up with "General Relativity"
  
  You made my point and refuted your own. Thanks.
  
  Is there some other reason why you're posting here, other than trolling?
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The point is that both searches had the word Theory in it. It doesn't matter, because it is Theory of General Relativity, or General Relativity Theory, or General Relativity, or TGR. It is still just a Theory, and it is now clear that you are just trying to argue the semantics, and have absolutely no understanding of TGR. I hope you actually learn about what you agree with one day. Good luck. LOL, you crack me up.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  But, it is a theory you know nothing about or you would have actually provided something valuable other than just attacking me, which is all you've done so far.
  
  If there's something wrong with the theory and it's results, point them out, provide the math and I'll be happy to show you why you're wrong.
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Attacking you how? I simply stated:
  
  General Relativity is still not "dead accurate" to this very day. Which is shown by your own equation. Looks like you have a lot of homework to do Mr. Einstein.
  
  http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/einstein.gif
  
  Sorry if you took offense to it. I didn't mean to hurt your feelings. You don't need to do any math, the blunder is right smack dab in the Field Equation. The equations work, but only by using assumptions that may or may not be true. You can't claim something is "dead accurate" when the conclusions are based off of assumptions.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Your ad homs were not necessary.
  
  Okay, please show me exactly where in the equation that particular "blunder" exists? There is no other way for you to make your point than to show mathematically why it is a blunder.
  
  Okay, what assumptions are you talking about? Please list them here and tell me why you think they may or may not be true?
  
  Then, if you describe those assumptions, we can work together to see where the error lies.
  
  I am in earnest here, considering that if you can point out the blunder, you have thus falsified the Theory of General Relativity.
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  My dear, it was proven this year. It was big big news. I dont know where you get your sources but i get mine from nature, jastor ans elsevier. I have an account and the raw data is sent to me every monrh. I however was informing you of the news source of is forum which you are apparently clueless about.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  General Relativity was demonstrated to be dead accurate many years ago. I have no idea what you're talking about.
  
  The news source was a pop sci website, no one cares what they think.
  reply report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100217/ … 862a.html. Dont get snooty on nature as it is the journal scientists use as a resource. They do not release data to just anybody. You have to be qualified. Darn it i cannot even link the exact page. Just search 2010 feb general relativity proven
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Maybe for medicine, but not for astrophysics. Try here:
  
  http://arxiv.org/
  
  reply report
2. 95
  wildernessposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I agree with cecilia - we couldn't prove man could fly until the Wright Brothers did it. Someday we'll understand black holes and their singularities.
  reply report
56
leebertteaposted 13 years ago

That's the only black hole I care about!
reply report
1. 63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  She is a little bit in some other universe dont you think. I mean i appreciate the humour but shes rather old and in need of serious therapy. But yiu know what the say your craziness should be proportional to your hotness and i guess yeah, shes forgiven forgive my ipad spelling
  reply report
61
TLMinutposted 13 years ago
This sounds quite interesting! My dad is a physicist and I just talked a little about it to him. He certainly didn't immediately scoff at it (he already knew about it) and started talking about theories of multiple universes and the math. Ummm, I'm NOT a physicist so I'll just have to go read more about it. My 15 year old is interested in all this too so reading it here gives me a heads-up on what to show him.
reply report
0
Anouserposted 13 years ago
Sounds more like speculative science fiction.
reply report
73
Uzdawiposted 13 years ago
I think the so called scientist who believe that,should to some reading about black holes( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_hole), i see that the article is from 2003 so maybe those "scinetists" didn´t have access to wikipeida:P, although this is very nice theory, this theory will remain science fiction and it´ll never turn in to a science fact.They should to the math again.
reply report
60
ediggityposted 13 years ago
That's just it, anyone who understands TGR already knows what the assumption is in the Field Equations.

Lastly, those were not ad homs. They were true. You do crack me up, and if you don't understand the equations you should study them. I only threw in Einstein because you have him as your picture. I find it ironic that a person with Einstein as their picture doesn't know what the assumptions in the Field Equations are.LOL.
reply report
1. 60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's it? That's all you have to support your argument? The argument from authority fallacy? You don't point out the blunder you claimed? You don't provide any explanation whatsoever? No math? Nothing? Nada? Zilch?
  
  Ah, but you have plenty of time, energy and resources to attack me personally with ad homs? Well done, sir!
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The equation with the discrepancy is right in front of your face. I can't help if you don't understand it. You're the one with Einstein on your picture not me.It's like you speaking to me in another language, and if I didn't understand it, told you that you were attacking me. LOL, you're funny no matter which name.
  
  Here is the support for my argument. It's called Math and Physics. It's another languange, and if you comprehended it you would understand.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, please show me exactly where you see this discrepancy? Yes, you can help me to understand it if you point it out.
  
  Okay, I'm funny, so what? Can you point out and explain your claim or not?
  
  You already posted that but you didn't point out your claim. You keep telling me I should be able to spot your claim, but I can't read your mind nor do I have the foggiest of what your talking about?
  
  If you can't explain what it is your talking about, why are you posting here? Just to tell me that I'm funny?
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  I'm not the one who claimed General Relativity was "dead accurate", you did. If you make a claim like that at least have an understanding of the fundamentals. It's not "dead accurate", as shown by Einsteins Field equations, and anyone who uses them already understands this. It never can be "dead accurate" until physicists/mathematicians confirm the discrepancy. I'm done, you believe what you want. Good luck Einstein.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You're done? What did you do exactly? Let me recap.
  
  You claimed "General Relativity is still not "dead accurate" to this very day."
  
  You posted a formula and then proceeded to claim there was a blunder and that everyone knew it. You didn't point it out when asked, you didn't explain yourself when asked, you did absolutely nothing but make the claim and then ran away laughing.
  
  Am I missing anything here?
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, you are missing a lot of something. LOL
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, I get it now. You found this website and are obsessed with it even though you don't really know what he's talking about.
  
  http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/blund.html
  
  You're confusing the Cosmological Constant with General Relativity. It's an easy thing to be confused about when you don't understand the theory.
  
  There are plenty of anti-relativists who are as deeply confused as you simply because they have no understanding. I think they are called woo-woos.
  
  Perhaps, you're far better off sticking to the bible.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  How can one confuse the Cosmological Constant with TGR? That doesn't make any sense. I got an idea, tell everyone what the value of the Cosmological Constant is, and problem solved. It was actually Einstein himself who said the constant was a mistake, not me, or the dude on the website. Looks like you should stick to COD, LOL.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  See? You are confused and don't understand the difference between them.
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It was a question, there was no I. Whatever you say. Have fun with GR-T. LOL.
  reply report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Here you go, this will alleviate your confusion:
  
  http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/C … rames.html
  reply report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  It elevates no confusion at all. This just further confirms my point. I've reviewed Mr. Caroll's work. Did you even read what he had to say?
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Of course, I read it years ago. Now, you can read something completely different from Carroll, his lecture notes on General Relativity. Hopefully, if you review this work, you'll begin to understand the differences between the two concepts and why you're confused.
  
  http://nedwww.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/M … tents.html
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Again, I digress, did you even read what he wrote?
  
  "The primary question facing any introductory treatment of general relativity is the level of mathematical rigor at which to operate. There is no uniquely proper solution, as different students will respond with different levels of understanding and enthusiasm to different approaches. Recognizing this, I have tried to provide something for everyone. The lectures do not shy away from detailed formalism (as for example in the introduction to manifolds), but also attempt to include concrete examples and informal discussion of the concepts under consideration"
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  What does that have to do with your confusion between the CC and GR?
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  No, confusion here at all. LOL
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  You must be confused. Why would companies who make GPS units have to include General Relativity corrections in order to make them work? How do you explain that if you believe GR is wrong?
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Oh man, wiki said that? Never mind, I retract everything I said before.
  Here's the first line:
  "General relativity or the general theory of relativity"
  
  Thank you for validating my point, again.
  
  I never said GR was wrong. I said it wasn't "dead accurate" and uses assumptions. You have a major comprehension problem, LOL You've missed the point completely. That's what happens when you read about things you don't fully understand. Keep the faith and good luck.
  report
  63
  ceciliabeltranposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  ey you know what, I had this very same absurd conversation in another thread.
  
  *shakes head* some people really think wiki and dictionaries are the ultimate absolute source of truth.
  
  Just so you know, you are not alone.
  
  (as in same problem, different topic)
  report
  60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yeah, it just makes me laugh. I like your new picture by the way.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, it is amazing how you both are so similar.
  report
  60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  report
81
LeanManposted 13 years ago
I hope so, otherwise they will have to redo all the films where we go whistling through the black holes into another dimension or elsewhere in the universe... But I think more likely that we would just crushed into a very small space until everything floats together and we have another big bang...
reply report
80
mega1posted 13 years ago
take, for instance, my relatives - since they are always changing and cannot be depended on, there cannot be a true equation that will pin them down as defined and absolute. One just accepts that.

as for the black holes as doors to other realms - probably, but since they have built in protection that destroys whatsoever trys to enter, that means we will never know. One just accepts that.

barbecue is often very good, but who likes their ribs rare?

And is it really possible to eat just one potatoe chip? I'm currently in the market for a million dollar grant to study this phenomenon.
reply report
1. 60
  ediggityposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  Built in protection? It's probably a giant laser.
  
  I like fall off the bone ribs. Sounds like you want to study the General Theory of Taste-buds. If you supply the chips, I will participate in your study. You won't need a million for me to prove that, no, you cannot just eat one potato chip LOL.
  reply report
66
Flightkeeperposted 13 years ago
If black holes are doors to new realms, that would be very cool. Too bad we don't have the technology to be able to determine it.
reply report
1. 60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  We do, they're called telescopes. There isn't much difference between a star and a black hole other than many of properties of matter in a black hole have been squished out of existence, because a black hole used to be a star that has burned it's fuel and the degeneracy process has been overcome by gravity.
  
  Going into a black hole is the same as going into the sun, without the sunburn.
  reply report
60
Beelzedadposted 13 years ago
Can you also explain the direct verifiable evidence of GR with the discovery of Pulsar 1913+16?

http://www.astro.cornell.edu/academics/ … sr1913.htm

And this evidence which shows GR to be "dead accurate" for photon deflection and the perihelion precession?

http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/0403043

And here with GPS units requiring GR corrections

http://www.phys.lsu.edu/mog/mog9/node9.html

Can you explain any of this with your belief system?
reply report
60
Beelzedadposted 13 years ago
One more thing, don't forget to login to Wiki and change the article to your belief. We wouldn't want people to think, but instead believe, right?

"General relativity's predictions have been confirmed in all observations and experiments to date. Although general relativity is not the only relativistic theory of gravity, it is the simplest theory that is consistent with experimental data."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_relativity
reply report
73
lone77starposted 13 years ago
If they do lead to other places, whatever gets pumped out of that "white" hole on the other side will be shredded and squished by the extreme gravity of the "black" hole. And no Heisenberg compensator to put it all back together!
reply report
61
Evan G Rogersposted 13 years ago
One of my favorite games of all time is called "Alpha Centauri".

In it, there's a quote: "what events actually transpire beyond an event horizon? Well, decent people shouldn't think about that..."

Translation: Even if there is a "gateway to a new realm"... you won't live to see it.
reply report
60
M'Lady Grimmposted 13 years ago
Based on the Theory of Parallel Protogenesis, black holes are remnant pools of compacted antemater which atomic matter cannot penetrate. The sheer density of this "quark" solid does not permit the expanded neutron fabric upon which atomic matter allows dispersion of energy, therefore the concept of a black hole "swallowing" expanded matter is a misnomer. Rather, for unknown reasons, the expanded neutron fabric begins to compact, energy is wrung out of the fabric in the release of electrons and protons, and the quark substances of the neutron fabric collapses back into an antemater solid.

If there exists a dimensional reality based on the framework of the quark solid,it is most likely based on an energy dimension very unlike our own; one transfixed beyond our concept of Time.
reply report
1. 60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  That's odd, black holes are supposed to be the remnants of stars in which gravity has overcome the process of neutron degeneracy.
  
  huh?
  reply report
61
Idude607posted 13 years ago
More like doors to straight Oblivion! Blackholes are the most powerful entity we have known, not even light can escape it. Makes me wonder how these "scientists" come up with such findings.
reply report
1. 60
  Beelzedadposted 13 years agoin reply to this
  The Scientific Method.
  
  http://www.scientificmethod.com/
  
  Hope this helps.
  reply report
60
gogetter4uposted 13 years ago
yeah..please go to books and literature post and click on "let's write a story..people are adding to the story and it's funny..good way to get known...keep adding to the story to see how far it goes...
reply report
90
Greensleeves Hubsposted 12 years ago
A black hole is the very opposite of the science fiction idea of a door or portal to a new or parallel universe. A black hole is the densest, most solid object conceivable; an object in which everything - even atoms - has become squashed out of existence. If you enter a black hole, the last thing you can do is go through it, because it isn't a hole.
reply report
1. 0
  klarawieckposted 12 years agoin reply to this
  Well, I guess if you become squashed out of existence you do enter a new realm - the spiritual realm.
  reply report
60
dutchman1951posted 12 years ago
of that realm is a smarter one, send me, I am tired of this world.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Some scientists believe that the black holes are doors to new realms

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Some scientists believe that the black holes are doors to new realms

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies