Having a wondering about it moment.
I don't have an answer.
That black hole at the center of our universe may not exert its pull upon the earth as much as it does on our sun.
Our sun revolves around it. So it does pull upon the sun.
Would the center of the back side of the sun, not facing the black hole not be effected as much by this gravitational force than the center of the side facing the black hole.
If there are solar storms, would those solar flares be less effected from that gravitational force from that black hole.
Would they not be much more damaging rays coming from that side of the sun that is hidden from the direction of that black hole? Maybe like a riffle barrel pointing out in space?.
Stupid question, I was just wondering..
I don't have an answer either. I think the gravitational pull is so strong that it basically separates everything down into atoms before it puts it back together and spits it out the other side. How high are you?
There is no black hole at the center of the universe because there is no such thing as the center of the universe. Are you perhaps referring to the center of our galaxy?
If so, the gravitational force of that black hole is too far away, hence too weak to affect our planets and our solar system.
Yes, since gravity gets weaker proportionally to distance.
Again, the black hole at the center of our galaxy is too far away to have any real measurable effects in contrast to the gravitational pull of the planets and our sun.
Pretty much all of space everywhere contains damaging electromagnetic rays considering there are billions of stars emitting them. Hope this helps.
Yes I was intending to say ..the center of our solar system.
If it is at the center of our solar system, I would think that everything in our system is revolving around it ??
Which would mean that it does have gravitational pull upon everything that revolves around it?? would it not?
Just seems that that gravitational pull would have less affect on the back side of the sun.
Where we are going to be perfectly lined up with in 12:21:2012. Just wondering if we might be exposed with a little bit more of "something" coming off that side of the sun??
No, it isn't the center of our solar system either.
The center of our solar system is the Sun :-)
@Pcunix OK haven't had morning coffee yet ??!.?/>/?/
What does the sun revolve around????
Csanad thanks I'll check it out later today.
Yeah, I kind of figured you needed a bit more caffeine :-)
The center of our galaxy. But, it is not the same kind of revolving that our planets have around our sun.
Within the solar system, planets closer to the sun revolve faster while planets further from the sun revolve slower.
That does not occur with all the stars and solar systems that revolve around the center of our galaxy, they all appear to be moving at the same rate. This has given rise to the theory of dark matter to help explain this phenomenon.
There most certainly is a gravitational effect but the matter that is causing this effect does not emit or reflect electromagnetic radiation, so at present cannot be seen with light sensitive receptors.
Yet the stars and our sun does revolve aroung the center of our milky way?? Does it not ???
Doesn't matter if we call it gravity or rubber bands, there is some kind of force keeping "STUFF" in our little part of the universe operating like clock work.
So are you saying that some unknown force is doing this in some unknown manner?
Yes the Milky Way galaxy.
They aren't rubber bands.
No, the force is known, it is gravity. What is unknown at this time is what kind of matter is producing the gravity.
That was a nice little circle that our conversation just completed.
SO ? There is a gravity force of unknown origin coming from the center of the milky way ? That has a pulling force upon all mater within its reach ? And we do not know how far that reach ,, reaches?
Nor do we know all of what is affected by it?
Correct me if I am wrong. This is how I understood what you said.
The origin of gravity within the center of the universe is theorized to be a black hole. The dark matter theorized to explain the rotation of galaxies is everywhere within the galaxy.
Gravitational fields extend to infinity, but they get weaker proportional to the distance. This can be calculated if we know the mass of the object.
Objects closer are affected more than objects further away.
Yea !! Full circle.. Now that we agree upon this much,
That force; I do not believe, would have the same affect upon the back side of the sun from that gravitational force.
I would think that solar flares on that side of the sun just might react differently than those that occurs on the side of the sun that faces the origin of that gravitational pull.
Technically, we do not know that gravitational force is infinite. We know very little about gravity at all.
Notice that this formula shows that the force of gravity decreases with the square of the distance between two masses. Hence, any two masses of infinite distance will have a gravitational effect on one another.
I'm sorry, but we do not know that this is true. It seems to be true for the things we can measure, but there actually are some theories that say it is not.
Just because a formula seems to give accurate results at one scale does NOT mean it holds at another.
If I stand three inches from a wall, I can strike that wall with a certain amount of force. If I move an inch forward or back, the force will be different. If that was all you had to go by, you might mistakenly calculate the force I could exert ten feet away, but you'd be very wrong.
It could be the same with gravity. We do not know the mechanism yet, so it's foolish to insist that it must follow the curves we see in local events.
Misunderstanding this, for example, could have everything to do with the need to postulate dark matter. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modified_N … n_dynamics (which of course can be total nonsense also).
Such as what?
The universe is homogeneous and isotropic, so yes, it holds.
It's not foolish at all.
I am afraid we are at an impasse. Someone very like you would have been insisting veery different things 100 years ago and would have been just as clueless as to the actual laws of physics.
When and if we have a unified theory of physics, we might be able to say things such as what you say with far more certainty. Until then, it's just a guess based on what we know so far and can change radically overnight. A good guess, of course. But still very far from certain.
I'll let my physics professor know how clueless I am. He'll get a good laugh out of that one.
There is no need for a unified theory of physics to understand how far gravity extends. We have millions of observations of objects that support the theory and the formula.
I suspect he will.
Until we have a unified theory, we we do not understand physics.
"Dark matter" and black holes are patches to explain why the formula does not work. Another explanation is that the formula is wrong.
I am sorry you do not understand this.
I love it when people keep telling me I don't understand something I spent years learning, yet they offer nothing in return. LOL!
Then you DO have a full understanding of physics? You know how gravity and magnetism work? You can tie it all together and explain everything?
My goodness - I am surprised that I haven't seen this announced.
As I said - go back 100 years or so and we could find plenty of other people as certain as you are that they understood physics. They did not, but they were just as certain.
If you are young, you may live long enough to see everything you think you know turned on its head. I hope you will remember yoor brash arrogance then.
LOL! Love those armchair woo-woos who watch the history channel and tell others they know nothing, waving their arms around claiming "everything you think you know turned on its head."
Hi Beely Boy! Good to see you still got your relentless energy!
Hey sweetcakes, how's it shakin?
Love the new avatar! Hot! Hot! Hot!
So, the question still stands...
If the world was about to end, would you do as the weather man says or would you come along with dear old Klara? LOL
So - your position is that there are no anomalies in our observations of gravity? Nothing observed that doesn't fit predictions?
Personally, I love these entrenched know-it-alls who do not.
I thought it was your position that physics was all wrong, that the formulas were wrong, that some day down the road it will all be shown to be wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong!!!
Usually, woo-woos get this kind of information from TV shows. LOL!
If you thought that was my position, then you have very poor reading comprehension.
You are calling me a what? A woo-woo?
You consider that a response to my question? I asked if it is your position that there are no observations that conflict with what you insist are absolute formulas for gravititational attraction?
Perhaps you need to check with your professor before you answer that.
I would like to remind you that forum rules prohibit name calling. Do it again and I will report you.
Here are your words:
What is one supposed to conclude with that claim if not that everything we know now is wrong? Please explain your position if that is not the case.
Within a black hole, they theoretically don't hold. Outside of the black hole, the formulas hold, with observations verifying that.
Of course, there are no observations within a black hole, unless you know something we don't. Please do provide those observations you refer.
Anyone can pull things out of context.
What say you to the Wikipwdia statement at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity#An … crepancies
"There are some observations that are not adequately accounted for, which may point to the need for better theories of gravity or perhaps be explained in other ways."
If the theory is wrong, the equations can be wrong. What I said is that we do not have a theory of gravity that is consistent with observations. As we both know, it doesn't hold true at atomic scale. What I said is that we don't KNOW that it holds true at extremely large scales. The need for dark matter or dark holes might also be explained by a different theory that indicated that gravity weakens over long distances.
And if you were really the expert you claim to be, you would know that are people who propose exactly that. It's NOT a generally accepted theory, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's wrong and since you do NOT have a theory that adequately accounts for actual observation, your theory can also be wrong.
Time to dismount the horse or are you going to continue this silliness?
Sorry, but I don't get my information from Widipedia, I get it from peer reviewed journals. You're free to present them to support your claims.
That is where you are wrong. General Relativity is consistent with the observations, in fact, it is quite accurate. No GPS unit in the world would ever work without it.
Seems it does according to observations.
Why are you now putting words in mouth? Where did I claim to be the expert?
General Relativity is an accepted theory and has mountains of evidence to support it. Again, your GPS...
You have yet to offer anything but uniformed opinions and Wikipedia. Silliness, indeed.
Oh, of couse: Wikipedia has no value.
Only YOUR opinions matter.
Fine. As I said, I hope you live long enough to realize how wrong you are.
Again, putting words in my mouth?
Didn't I just state that I get my information from peer reviewed journals, not Wikipedia? Hence, they aren't MY opinions.
I hope you live long enough to realize peer reviewed journals are what scientists use to learn and understand the world and the universe around us, not Wikipedia.
Perhaps, you may also understand how GPS works. Do you?
*hint* see Wiki. LOL!
What is the distance to GPS satellites expressed as a percentage to the size of even a small galaxy?
Do you think Wikipedia articles are written by unknowledgable people? Why don't you go correct that article and set all those fools straight?
I know why: because the people who write it and do the peer reviews there would rip out your edits instantly. Real physicists, not just people who pretend.
Or write a hub criticizing Wikipedia for being "woo-woo's" as you put it. Tell them they got their ideas from the Discovery channel. Ask them if they know how a GPS works. Yeah, do that: I think the results would be pretty darn amusing! You might even get yourself written up somewhere big: "Hubber shows up Wikipedia (not)".
Are you presenting a strawman for some reason?
Sorry you feel miserable about not having an understanding beyond Wikipedia and you have to take your frustrations out on others by putting words in their mouth to support your misinformed opinions. Later dude. I'm getting tired of your silly mind games.
I think you misunderstood the "clueless".
I assume that you do not have a unified theory of physics.
No person yet born has a true understanding of physics. Everyone is clueless. Go back and read what I said while holding that thought.
I will have to say that it is good that we study theoretical physics but for the most part GUFT will not affect your every day life.
After Guft, there will be a lot more that we will need to study and there will be new horizons. We will never have everything figured out.
Even in areas of genetics, social sciences, and medicine to name a few, we have very little knowledge.
What we do have is very good understanding of physics which allows us to produce and engineer our world.
Current gravity and magnetism knowledge allows us to build motors and airplanes and structures.
The laws which you speak of are going to be of little consequence to the majority of people. They may produce new technologies but the thing is that the GUFT may not become reality in our lifetime.
This does not change the fact that we have many good laws. Gravity, magnetism, weak, and strong nuclear forces are going to be bubble gum for the brain. Any anomalies will not seriously affect your physical world.
The center of our solar system is our sun. There is no black hole there.
The sun, yes it does have a gravitational field that affects our planets.
I don't know too much about astrology, but since our solar system is pretty much at the edge of the galaxy, I would think that there are a lot of space objects between the black hole and our sun.
I found a really useful forum discussion here:
http://2012-comet.com/phpbb/2012/superm … t1243.html
Astronomy, not astrology!
Sheesh! Don't they teach ANY science any more?
Depends on who THEY are! Just think of the black hole at the center of our galaxy as a toilet drain! As us as.......!
Oops! Sorry! I meant astronomy! I told you I don't know much about the subject, ha ha! I wasn't taught astronomy, neither astrology, in school; English is only my second language.
Not stupid. Weird assumption.
There is no center of the universe because to assume there is, we have to at-least see the entire universe which is not at all possible. You can only find out center of solar system.
The "Human Mind" ... Meaning, The Lord's Granted Human Awareness of Creation, in Being ... Is The Truth ... what helps us behold the Physical cum Ideal Reality, of our Universe ...
The Universe is a Paired Structure ... a Physical and Ideal Composed Singularity ... This is The Truth of Existential Reality.
There are no Black Holes, at the Center of the Universe ...
It is Ignorance ... of the Unbelieving Mind, that creates the Illusion of Utter Darkness ... as Black Holes, at the center of a purely Physical Universe ...
Illuminating the Core of the Existent, is Islamic Faith's Brilliance.
this reminds me of a song... remember Black Hole Sun?
you can watch shows about it on the History channel, etc., Nova. I was watching something the other night about the edge of the universe. it was rather amazing.
I watch many of those when I catch them on.
I have been wondering about the above question for some time.
The other day I saw that the US sent a probe out there that will intersect the suns path to study the other side of the sun.
Made me wonder ???
As well, Jerami, please remember that there are billions of stars in our galaxy, many of them reside near the center with their gravitational fields adding to the mix. And, when you have multiple objects and are trying to calculate the effects of their gravitational fields on everything else, it gets extremely complicated.
The last time I saw a black hole was when my granny opened her mouth.
No, nothing of the kind happened
I don't care to attempt to name it or explain how it does it; Something close to the center of the milkey way does have enough gravitational pull on our sun and solar system to keep it in orbit around whatever it is , If it didn't it wouldn't.
This is a really deep subject.....uh, well, I sent a message to my son who is a Physics/Astronomy major. I gave him the link to this thread. Maybe he can shed some light.
I will be anxiously waiting.
I happen to catch a couple of phrased on Nova or history channel that explained that the U.S. had sent a rocket that is suposed to cross the path on the back side of the sun to observe whatever there is to learn. I wondered at the time if this had anything to do with the 12-21-2012 thing.
Our sun and solar system is revolving around something.
That something is what I am referring to as center.
I think that is the black hole?
That is not a black hole. Our sun's movement is affected by other celestial objects gravity pull. There are other galaxies nearby, so sun is not revolving around any one of those celestial objects specifically .
I am confused on this as well. If there is no fixed pull from one dominate force, how does the sun have a fixed rotation?
I don't know what do you mean by fixed rotation. Without looking at the solar system from various sides of our galaxy and without trying to understand the forces affecting the stars, i don't know how you managed to determine fixed rotation & direction of sun.
Whatever the solar system is doing it seems to be doing it on a regular basis.
Scientists say that this event coming up in 2012 happens every 26000 years.
And they know that events like halley's comet happens every 76 years.
How can they know where Mars is going to be years before they land a rover on it?
Gotta be a consistent rotation.
I would guess that it takes 26000 years for the sun to rotate around the milky way.
I'll take my craziness a step farther. I bet that our milky way has a fixed rotation around something even bigger????
I doubt that. Atleast here in Asia, there is limited astrophysics syllabus in school.
But it's so easy today to educate yourself on almost any subject, I just find some of this quite surprising.
I think Jerami has a point on this one. This states a black hole is at the center of our galaxy and the sun orbits around the center of the galaxy. Whether or not the black hole has effect on the suns rotation, I don't know. I think it does make it odd that we rotate around our center because of the suns force, but that the suns center has no force that keeps it in rotation.
The Galactic Center is the rotational center of the Milky Way galaxy. It is located at a distance of 8.33±0.35 kpc (~27,000±1,000 ly) from the Earth in the direction of the constellations Sagittarius, Ophiuchus, and Scorpius where the Milky Way appears brightest. It is believed that there is a supermassive black hole at the Galactic Center of the Milky Way.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galactic_Center
To certain extent we can make prediction about planets(position,speed of rotation etc) but saying whatever the solar system is doing is regular basis sounds like naive statement.
Lol. No comment.
Predicting rotation of comets and predicting 2012 events is entirely different. We are able to predict comets cycle because we've managed to find out about all the places in which those comets are moving recursively.
Not consistent but more of predictable. Even earth is not consistent with it's speed after years of evolution.
You're free to make assumptions but the fact is there is no fixed rotation for milky way around something bigger. You've to show us that something bigger.
Thanks. The only way something is predictable is if it's consistent. Why does something have to be bigger to have more force? Do you forget the big bang theory started from a single atom? How big is an atom?
To predict something inconsistent we measure it over time period. That doesn't mean we can't predict things that are inconsistent. Climate of this planet is inconsistent, does that mean we have not managed to predict about it ?
Small or Big ? Show me the *Single* force in this galaxy that you assume is keeping sun's rotation fixed.
Thanks. The less consistency, the less predictability. There are different consistencies like the weather. If climate had no repitition or consistency, then it would be unpredictable.
What do you mean small or big?
Please quote where I assumed anything.
http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Sta … ion18.html
Check the link, it looks pretty interesting.
You assumed single force that keeps the rotation of the sun fixed here in this quote.
Now try to google about it and check if your assumption is giving you any close answers to the fact.
This only taken into consideration when we know the parameters that caused inconsistencies,then we can predict. Try to find the single parameter which as per your assumption kept sun's rotation fixed.
About that links - You find any answers for questions like center of universe ? or black hole at the center of solar system ?
Thanks. I didn't know it was an assumption, I thought it was a question. Do you believe there is no predictability or repetition in the suns rotation? If there is any predictability or repetition, this should make it fixed to some extent.
Explain why the sun rotates around no center point that controls it's gravity when the earth and other planets rotate around a center point that determine their gravity?
It's your assumptiom because you used repeatadly in your questions. If you think sun's rotation is predictabe because of that single force,prove it.
Thanks. Where did I state this as fact? I do not know what an assumptiom is. Why would I think it is by a single force when other planets effect the earths rotation besides the sun?
We are moving at an average velocity of 828,000 km/hr. But even at that high rate, it still takes us about 230 million years to make one complete orbit around the Milky Way! http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/Sta … ion18.html
How would we have an idea of how fast and how long it takes the sun to rotate the galaxy without some kind of fixed rotation, repitition, or predictability?
1) Check the post where i quoted your question where you assumed this.
2) How can we predict rotation of sun? Calculations taken over period of time.
Thanks. I didn't assume anything. It was a question, not an assumption, there is a difference. How do you have calculations over a period of time making a prediction without fixed movement or repitition? Doesn't happen. Can't make accurate predictions unless something follows a path.
Sure you can. As long as you have some basic information on mass, velocity and direction, one can make very accurate predictions.
Thanks. Please define "basic information". How do you determine the speed, mass, or direction if it's always changing and never has repetition?
Could you provide some examples of something that is "always changing"?
If an object is hurtling through space, we invoke Newtons first law that anything in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an external force. If there are changes, then there are external forces.
Hence the speed and direction will remain constant.
Thanks. Always changing meaning constantly changing direction and speed. It is hard to think of things that are always changing because of the laws of gravity and repetition in the universe. Maybe it could be said the universe is always changing because of it's expansion and it's speed. What external forces are causing the universe to expand and why is it's expansion not constant?
"You assumed single force that keeps the rotation of the sun fixed here in this quote.
The center of the Solar system is the sun. Glad we got that figured out.
The sun and another 1-4 billion other stars orbit around Sagittarius A* (pronounced A-star), which is called a "supermassive black hole."
Our Milky Way galaxy in turn is one of a possible 125 billion or so galaxies, each with varying structures and numbers of stars affecting their shape, gravity, etc.
So do you believe the black hole has some or no effect being at the center of our galaxy? Also, how can we know the full effects of gravity when we don't know what effects dark matter has or if it exists?
Well, the black hole itself has a tremendous effect on our particular galactic system, as it creates the size and shape of the vast system. That said, its impact is lost when viewed in a larger scope. Check out this video to see what I mean:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8KPijjKt … re=related
It just seems too simple to not be true ; that everything in the universe already has a designated path. That everything is in orbit. Of course we have objects colliding and having a new projected path designated to it. Until it impacts something else.
I know my terminology suffers but
Just saying; Is it over simplification to say; everything is in orbit around something, from the smallest to the largest. How could it all work for these millions of years if it didn't?
Jerami, trying to imagine the way things are without actually learning anything about it does not produce results or answers that are in any way valid or credible.
Neither does often typing one or two liners teach anything except for your entertainment. What is the point of lecturing people to learn when you are unwilling to teach anything?
Are you saying that you need to learn everything from me, that you're unable to learn something on your own?
It would seem too that you have ignored that fact that I have indeed been talking specifically to Jerami and answering his questions, which are good questions.
Your claim then is disingenuous.
I can't tell ya how many times in life that after prolonged investigation and an exhaustive analytical procedure, that I find myself having gone full circle, and the oversimplified explination was sufficient; Good enough for me anyway.
What do you mean by "prolonged investigation and exhaustive analytical procedure"?
answering this question would be a prime example of what I'm talking about.
After a long drawn out explination by me and analytical examination by you, nothing will have been added to or taken away from the original statement.
A wild goose chase averted.
I'll be checking back in from time to time.
Painting a few walls around my house today.
Are you saying that no amount of explanation on my side will help you understand it or change your beliefs?
NOoo I'm not saying that.. I was speaking of me answering that particular question that you asked in that particular post.
As far as the OP I suspect that after we have explored and gone completely around the universe, explaining every detail to its fullest extent we will arrive back at step one.
The sun and our solar system is on a pre designated path with slight deviations.
Actually, there are some pretty serious deviations and no clear path due to the fact that the solar system bobs and weaves through the galactic plane and is not revolving the same way as we are around our sun.
What do you mean bobs and weaves? I thought everything had predictable movement unless an outside force changes it? Are things crashing into it making it change course?
There are "outside forces" which affect our galaxy as it moves through space! Other galaxies being just one of them. Merely look at the influence our moon has on the earth to see how a small heavenly body not only slows the rotation of the earth, but affects the tides and the living creatures on it.
Not really. We haven't observed anything crashing into our solar system lately. However, this is one of observations along with similar observations regarding our solar systems rotation around the galaxy and through the galactic plane influenced by the billions of stars within the galaxy and the influence of what is theorized as dark matter.
But to assume that we have figured all of this out?
To calculate the path of the sun around the milky way can be compared to swimming a hundred yards and figuring out the curvature of the earth.
My mind is way too simplistic to imagine our sun not being held in a predictable path around the milky way.
Maybe it is the milky way itself that holds us on our path. And it is that black hole that has the milky way held in its path??
Is the Milky way held in any kind of path?
I'll sit my uninformed self aside now and learn something.
I gotta paint a bedroom today anyway.
This thread reminds me of a song that went more or less like this :
"Don't bogart that joint, my friend, pass it over to me !
Roooolllllll another one... just like the other one !"
As far as my origional question; it seems that I was wrong. It isn't the black hole in the milkey way that holds our system in its path, but the milky way as a whole does.
Back to the original point in question? Would the solar activity on the back side of the sun be affected differently than on the side facing the milky way?
I suspect that it possibly does and we will be seeing this up close and personal in a few years. It is reported that there will be record activity on the sun about this time.
Time will tell.
You did assumed when you questioned to me and then made paragraph based on that assumption of yours "single force behind fixed rotation".
Calculations over period of time is based on parameters which are necessary to know the outcome. For example, we try to understand velocity, direction and forces on celestial objects in this case. There are many deviation and many results never follow strict path to get accurate answers. Don't tell me you never came across linear increase or fluctuations which are happened with things over period of time. They don't have to be repeating, in fact in many calculations we don't get them. So if you assume "rotation is fixed by single force"(without giving any necessary details about your calculation) prove it.
1. There exists nothing outside the universe to cause any force.
2. To answer about expansion you need astrophysicist here. Even that person can't give concrete answer because we've limited observations regarding the expanding universe. We can't say it is uniformly expanding or heavily expanding from X direction. There are very limited observation in this area.
Thanks for your honesty. How do you know there exists nothing outside the universe that causes force when we don't know everything inside the universe that causes force to expand?
I am not assuming, I am just stating that it seems odd that the sun is our dominate force of gravity, but the sun has no dominating force of gravity. I agree other planets effect the earth and suns rotation, but how is there rotation without a dominate force in the middle?
As far from solar eclipse..... Try to feel the accidents of your life while you are passing on the bad time is their any existence of black hole at that particular moment on your mind.
by flysky 4 years ago
What is the “speed” of gravity?Hypothetically, if one remove the Sun from its place, when the Earth would be affected? Momentary, by the speed of light or by some speed specific to the gravity...?
by Alexander A. Villarasa 5 years ago
An article on National Geographic, in discussing "The Multiverse" stated it simply this way: "One can best get a sense of the fine-tuning problem by thinking about the gravitational force. If this force were much stronger than it actually is, the big bang would have collapsed...
by Eric Newland 6 years ago
...there would be no gravity.My reasoning comes from the Shell Theorem:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shell_theoremSimply put, a spherical shell exerts no net gravitational force on objects inside it. Likewise, there will be no net gravitational force on a point at the very center of a solid...
by DaniellaWood 8 years ago
Is there life on other planets? What do you think?Scientific descoveries suggest that some planets are too hot or too cold for life and that others have no water and so on. But surely humans and animals canNOT be the only living creatures in the whole of the solar system...some even claim to...
by jerami 8 years ago
Hope this doesn't sound too childish. I was just looking at a picture of our universe.It looked Very similar to an aerial photo of a hurricane, It seemed to have bands spiraling off from it as does a hurricane; and I was just wondering if some of the same principals ...
by Anjili 8 years ago
Why is there more gravitational pull on earth than on other planets?Are other planets really habitable?
Copyright © 2019 HubPages Inc. and respective owners. Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners. HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc. HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.
|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.|
|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.|
|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.|