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

Den 29.09.2024 19:02, skrev rhertz:

On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 11:42:18 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
 

 From whence did you get the idiotic idea that the mass
of UY Scuti was 5 billion solar masses? :-D
>
M = 30 solar masses =  5.967e31 kg
R = 696340e3⋅1700 m = 57868e6 m

correction: R = 1183778e6

c = 299792458 m/s
>
Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² = 7.65e-7

  Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² = 3.74e-8
even smaller!

>
Which is less than the red shift from the Sun.
>

>
In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327

>
M = 1.989E+30 kg
R = 696340e3 m
>
Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² = 2.12e-6
>

>
WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY CALCULATIONS, BASED ON THE WIKI LINK?

>
Now you know.

 ***************************************************************
QUOTE:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The biggest star in the universe (that we know of), UY Scuti is a
variable hypergiant with a radius around 1,700 times larger than the
radius of the sun.
  To put that in perspective, the volume of almost 5 billion suns could
fit inside a sphere the size of UY Scuti.

Now I know from where you got the idiotic idea that the mass of
UY Scuti was 5 billion solar masses.
I will give you a hint:
(Rsun⋅1700)³/Rsun³ = 4.913e9
You have to be _very_ ignorant to believe that all stars
have the same density.
All stars, including UY Scuti, has once been
a main sequence star with 'normal' size.
A typical O-star in the main sequence has ~ 200 solar masses.
The most massive star known has ~ 300 solar masses
Giants and Super-giants are stars at the end of their
life when they increase in size before they go supernova,
or shrinks to red dwarfs when all the 'fuel' is burned (fusion).
In five million years the Earth will be inside the Sun,
and at that time it will have lost much of its mass,
and will have a density much less than now.

  The star lies near the center of the Milky Way, roughly 9,500
light-years away from Earth. Located within the constellation Scutum, UY
Scuti is a hypergiant star. Hypergiants — larger than supergiants and
giants — are rare stars that shine very brightly. They lose much of
their mass through fast-moving stellar winds.
  https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html
**************************************************************

I quote:
"UY Scuti's large radius does not make it the most massive,
  or heaviest, star. That honor goes to R136a1, which weighs in
  at about 300 times the mass of the sun but only about 30 solar radii.
  UY Scuti, in comparison, is only about 30 times the mass of the sun,
  but far greater in volume."

 You didn't even try to read the OP, from where I extracted the data,
idiot.

I can do what you have demonstrated over and over you can't;
read a text _properly_ and understand what it says.
This is typical Richard Hertz.
He doesn't consider the possibility of being wrong's even
when the correction is shoved into his face.
This make your error into a giant blunder.

  So, rela-astrophysicists come out with any shit, as they are not
accountable for what they publish.

But you have got it now, haven't you?
Your giant blunder was to take it for granted that all stars
have the same density, and found it reasonable that the mass
of UY Scuti was 5 billion solar masses. :-D
--
Paul
https://paulba.no/