Re: Gravitational red-shifting in the biggest star. What are the real colors?

On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 18:20:22 +0000, J. J. Lodder wrote:
<snip>

Reading isn't your strongest point, is it?
By Wikipedia, the best mass estimate is smaller than 10 solar masses,
with a radius probably extending beyond Mars.
This implies a negligeable gravitational red shift,
so the answer to your question is: red, red, and red,
>
Jan

i'm very good at reading and I'm confident about people extracting the
correct information from the links I post. I don't censure anything.
It's you who sucks when you "cherry-pick" data, and also sucks being
sarcastic, old prune.
ONE MORE TIME, I EXTRACT THIS PART. BE HONEST:
From Wikipedia, two different values for mass and a remarkable "MASS IS
UNKNOWN":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UY_Scuti
The luminosity is then calculated to be 340,000 L☉ at an effective
temperature of 3,365±134 K, giving an initial mass of 25 M☉ (possibly up
to 40 M☉ for a non-rotating star).[4]
.....
UY Scuti has no known companion star and so its mass is uncertain.
However, it is expected on theoretical grounds to be between 7 and 10
M☉.[4]
***********************
7, 10, 25, 1,000 M☉. Rela-astrophysicists DON'T HAVE A CLUE!
Aren't they in the club that affirm that baryonic matter in the Universe
accounts for only 5% of what BBT/GR requires?
And these geniuses try to calculate mass by using luminosity and 150
years old formulae. Theoretical astrophysics IS AN ABSOLUTE JOKE, since
the times of Stefan, later with Eddington.