Stars seem to be, but they don't have big and/or unstable atoms such as most radioactive elements have. They release sub atomic units when their atoms fuse, along with rays such as gamma rays, which is why they can seem to be similar to other radioactive things.
Some planets with atmostpheres that are ionised by ionising rays can also be similar to radioactive things perhaps.
All planets are radioactive, considering that they are all formed from the same interstellar dust, which is radioactive.
None. Although Mercury, Uranium and Plutonium might seem to be named after planets they were not. They were named after ancient deities.
It is actually the Earth that moves, not the stars, but from the surface of the earth it appears that the stars are moving. Stars rise in the east and set in the west, rotating around an apparent "pole" formed by the North Staplus.
simple as it may seem, Hydrogen and Carbon
Substances that do not dissolve are insolubles, because they are not soluble they do not dissolve.
There is no difference. Country Miles just seem longer.
oh yes, all the way, they are SO heavenly filled with bodies of the heavens, that even i cant stand the heavenliness! :0 Planets ARE heavenly bodies, as are stars. Some planets have satellites, and some don't.
celestial sphere A+
celestial sphere A+
Some planets seem brighter - not all of them. Planets are quite near to us, as compared to the stars.
The celestial sphere.
the celestial spherecelestialtrue
the celestial spherecelestialtrue
the celestial spherecelestialtrue
No, but they all seem to have metal cores. Minor planets are not so consistent.
They're constellations which appear around the celestial poles, which never seem to rise or set.
Yes. The massive giant planets have far more moons than the less massive terrestrial planets.
Most Planets seem spherical, but have lots of indentations. There are no common factors among planets and all appear to have physical differences