could drift, and it drifted into a black hole,about the size of the moon, what would happen to it?
122932
The red giant star wouldn't even have to drift into a black hole to experience its effects; anywhere within the black hole's gravitational realm and the star's material will be sucked off and drawn into the black hole. Red Giant stars are supernova candidates due to their immense mass, but as this one loses more and more mass to the black hole the chances of a supernova would diminish. Eventually the star could be completely drawn in. Then it would be completely shredded and torn apart. For an artist's conception of what this would look like go here -- >http://www.art.com/asp/display-asp/_/ID--1849/PG--4/posters.htm?TNID=1&ui=02A4F7B391854142AA1E8C601DCB3E5A\n\nGod is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
172423
The world would be very weird. It would be kind of like living on the space station with no gravity, only much weirder. Nothing would float and nothing would sink. Wood floats on water because it is less dense and rock sinks because it is more dense. A helium balloon floats in air because it is less dense than air and a person does not because he is denser than air. In fact water stays in the glass instead of floating up out of it because water is denser than air. So everything would kind of be weightless since everything would neither float to the top no sink to the bottom of any air or water.\n\nNow all this is assuming that everything has the SAME density. If the very concept of density did not exist, that would be so weird that I could not even begin to imagine what the universe would be like or if it would even be possible to have a universe without the concept of density.
110220
It will be from way out on a plane based on our orbital track. I think the intensity of the sun will block out the view of whether or not it goes behind or in front of the sun. The center of the universe, even though it is a non-existent place, for arguments sake, would be moving as everything in the universe is dynamic. (There is no end to infinite, therefore the center cannot be defined.)
163967
i was always under the impression that you will move fast enough in a black hole to actually move backwards in time, but because the gravity is so massive, you would never be able to escape, no matter how far back you were to go.  that is, if you were able to live, and your body isn't torn apart.  parts of your body closer to the core of a black hole supposedly would be pulled at a greater rate than parts of your body that are farther from the core.  personally, i don't believe that would happen, i believe the whole body would be pulled towards the center, and move backwards in time until it died of thirst.
406232
It depends on the mass of the star in question. For example, a star is born, it grows old, it gets larger (Red giant stage) and it dies. Depending on its mass and newly discovered turbulence inside a star before collapse, it will either go supernova and create a planetary nebula and reduce to a white dwarf, or go supernova, continue to collapse and turn into a black hole. It all depends on the mass of the star, and the amount and directionality of the turbulence inside the star's core.
59875
The gravity forces between his head and his feet will be very different while he gets closer to the black hole, and this will make him strech like a spaghetti. Many other things will happen, but surely he will not live to see them.\n\nAfter many billon years, maybe his mass transformed in energy will come out of the Black Hole in the form of radiation, called Hawking Radiation.
33834
googled to find this:\n\n"The Moon, at first, will recede further and further from the Earth, but the two bodies will continue to orbit about their common centre of gravity. Around 600,000,000 years from now, the Moon will be too far away for total eclipses to occur.\n\nHowever, this process won't continue indefinitely - as Mike Sawicki points out in his Myths About Tides and Gravity:\n\nOnce the Earth becomes tidally locked with the Moon, the solar tides will tend to slow the Earth’s rotation even more, so the day will be longer than the month and the Moon will rise in the West and set in the East. The water spheroid generated by the Sun will cause the high tide to appear earlier than the time of highest moon ... Then the tidal force of Earth on the Moon will pull the Moon into a lower orbit and eventually inside the Roche limit (18500 km), whereupon the Moon will disintegrate producing a ring round the Earth."\n\nWhatever happens, we won't be around to know!
128926
It would appear as a dim ball revolving around itself and orbiting earth, phaes will not be visible of course, it will look like a ball all the time to an observer flying near by it in space.
98027
Predictions suggest that the range will increase until the Earth and Moon become double synchronised, that is, both are tidally locked to one another. The Earth-Moon distance would then be about 550000km. This won't occur for something like 50 billion years. Before then, though, our Sun will have died, and both the Earth and Moon almost certainly won't even exist.\n\nThis website for answer confirmation and more info  -->http://www.madsci.org/posts/archives/apr2002/1020171327.As.r.html\n\nGod is spelled B-I-G B-A-N-G\nPBrax@netscape.com
236342
I'd see a waning gibbous moon.\n\nOur sentiments play tricks on us to make us think the moon is rarer than it used to be.  But it's been revolving around the earth for a very long time.
556872
A very good question but one that we don't know the answer to yet.  It is a hypothetical situation that could create a wormhole or perhaps the center of a blackhole is where this kind of phenomenon occurs.  The bottom line is that there is no hard evidence of this but it seems possible according to mathematical models.
597069
Ok, first things first.  This situation cannot occur.  Such a string does not exist and probably cannot exist.\n\nA black hole is actually not a "hole" so to speak.  It is a super-dense core.  The denser an object is, the stronger the force of gravity that this object exerts on all objects around them.  That means that even you or I exert gravity on everything around us.  However, our own gravititational force is so weak that we don't even perceive it.\n\nNo one that we know of has gone near a black hole.  The nearest known black hole is 1600 light-years away.  One light year is approximately 6 trillion miles.  So the nearest black hole (that we know of) is approximately 1600 times 6 trillion miles away, or 9.6 quadrillion miles away.\n\nAnyway, I don't want to complicate it too much.  This is stuff you would learn in a high school or college physics class, and my guess is that you have not taken such a course yet in your life.
638926
A black hole never reaches an upper limit.  It can suck in the equivalent mass of galaxies and the only thing that will change is that the event horizon will increase in size.  \n\nYou see, a regular star keeps from collapsing by virtue of the intense heat and energy released in the fusion fires at its core.  As the hydrogen fuel in the core runs out, the core shrinks(because of the lower energy output) and the increased density makes the core hotter and ignites a shell of hydrogen outside the core and the star expands in size to a red giant.  As the helium fuel is used up, other reactions take place, and it builds up through many of the more common elements (Carbon, Oxygen, etc.).Eventually, all the fuel is used up and  it settles down to be a white dwarf and remains so until the energy dies down and it effectively becomes a very dense, very massive black body. \n\nIf the star is really massive, as it runs out of fuel, its core shrinks very quickly and may instigate a supernova.  Most of the outer shell is blown off into space and what is usually left is a neutron star.  The gravity is so intense as to crush atoms down to the size of their nuclei...effectively making a neutron star a ball of atomic nuclei and possibly sub-atomic particles.  The only thing keeping it from collapsing further is the reticence of nuclear particles to be mashed together...but even that has limits.\n\nIf that limit is broached, the mass of the entire neutron star collapses into a point (singularity) of equal mass.  The event horizon (the limit outside of which neither matter nor light may escape) remains where the surface of the neutron star would have been had it not been too massive to keep itself solid.  As more mass is added, the event horizon expands, and there is no upper limit known.  In the center of galaxies, there are supposed to be supermassive black holes with masses equivalent to billions of stars, and they are only getting bigger.
274172
You've probably seen the pictures of a grid with a giant funnel extending infinitely downward.  That's not the shape of the hole itself, but a map of the curvature of space near the singularity.  The singularity, or "hole" itself is a point of infinitely large density and infinitely small size.
7789
Correction: when stars "die", they either become a white dwarf (if they're light, where all elements are reduced to primarily iron, which has a lower energy state than anything lighter or heavier--hence, it becomes spent nuclear fuel that cannot react anymore), or a neutron star (as above, but with a mass so great that gravitational forces overwhelm nuclear forces making electron collapse into protons in a single mass), or they can become black holes (if their mass is so very great that all matter is compressed into a singlarity--ie, a point with infite density).  The mass of a black hole is guaged by the degree to which it curves the surrounding space-time continuum.\n\nA white dwarf glows as it is white-hot, but as it cools down, it becomes a brown dwarf, turning dark.\n\nThe debate in astronomy is whether the rate of the universe's expansion is sufficient to keep all black holes from collapsing.  On either end, a break prediction lies: in one scenario, everything forms one big singularity, while in the other, energy fluctations slowly even out until entropy is optimized throughout the universe, resulting in the "heat death" of the universe.
75660
The tides would f*ck over the coastlines and werewolves would become extinct.  Plus, with my luck, a zillionth of the moon would hit my car.
540834
It does! It is going slower and slower all the time, due to the gravitational drag of the moon. Eventually, there will be tidal lock, and the moon will be much further away. And you and I will be a billion years dead.\nSee, all this happens on a PLANETARY time scale. We can't perceive it, except with very very sensitive devices that have only become available fairly recently.\nAs to why it spins ... maybe its happy? \nNo no no. It spins because it retains the orbital movement from when it coalesced into a solid mass. At the core, there is a gravitational singularity, and all the matter that makes up our planet is/was in orbit around it, but reached equilibrium in the collapse, forming the "solid" planetary mass.\nWhat astronomers are only now coming to realize (having deduced that there is a lot more matter in the universe than is readily observable) is that there are gravitational singularities at the core of virtually every large-scale body - planets, stars, and galaxies. \nThe whole notion of planets "coalescing" WITHOUT such a singularity is absurd, even in a Newtonian universe.\nSo, if you dug a deep enough hole, you would find a hole. Neat-o, huh?