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

[rhertz]

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.

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
--------------------------------------------------------------------


Imagine the gravitational potential on the surface of such a star, 5E+09
times more massive than the Sun. And only 9,500 light-years away from
Earth, discovered in 1860 by Germans.

Whatever the visible colors at its surface are, according to Einstein
and his gravitational red-shifting crap, the entire visible spectrum
(Hubble telescope) should have an incredible distortion when pics are
taken.

The star would appear severely reddish in our "perception".

Questions with the data from above:

1) WHICH IS THE RED-SHIFT THAT WE, INDIRECTLY, PERCEIVE?

2) OBSERVED NEARBY, WOULD GREEN AND BLUE COLORS EXISTS?. BECAUSE, AS
SEEN FROM EARTH, IT'S ALL RED DUE TO RED-SHIFTING.

3) ANYONE DARE TO CALCULATE THE PERCEIVED FREQUENCY SPECTRUM SHIFT FROM
WHAT IS VISIBLE CLOSE TO IT, WITH RESPECT TO WHAT WE PERCEIVE HERE?

[rhertz]

This link illustrates a bit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift

Using the most common formula from that link: "To first approximation,
gravitational redshift is proportional to the difference in
gravitational potential divided by the speed of light squared"

Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = GM/c² (1/R - 1/r) = Φ(R)/c² - Φ(r)/c²

G = 6.6743E−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2
M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m


Φ(R)/c² = 6,842,736.59

In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327



At r = 10,000,000 R = 10,077,800,000,000,000,000 m

Φ(r)/c² = 0.684273659


Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = 6,842,736


The z-value can be expressed succinctly in terms of the escape velocity
at R, since the gravitational potential is equal to half the square of
the escape velocity, thus:

z = 1/2 (v_escape/c)²

v_escape = 3699.4 c

But then, light can escape from UY Scuti.

Yet, it was discovered in 1860.



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

[rhertz]

Sorry, CAN'T ESCAPE.

[rhertz]

QUOTE FROM WIKI;

In astronomy, the magnitude of a gravitational redshift is often
expressed as the velocity that would create an equivalent shift through
the relativistic Doppler effect. In such units, the 2 ppm sunlight
redshift corresponds to a 633 m/s receding velocity, roughly of the same
magnitude as convective motions in the Sun, thus complicating the
measurement.

QUOTE MORE BULL SHIT

In astronomical objects with strong gravitational fields the redshift
can be much greater; for example, light from the surface of a white
dwarf is gravitationally redshifted on average by around (50 km/s)/c
(around 170 ppm).[12]

Observing the gravitational redshift in the Solar System is one of the
classical tests of general relativity.[13] Measuring the gravitational
redshift to high precision with atomic clocks can serve as a test of
Lorentz symmetry and guide searches for dark matter.

.....

The first accurate measurement of the gravitational redshift of a white
dwarf was done by Popper in 1954, measuring a 21 km/s gravitational
redshift of 40 Eridani B.[16] The redshift of Sirius B was finally
measured by Greenstein et al. in 1971, obtaining the value for the
gravitational redshift of 89±16 km/s,

.....................

In 2018, the star S2 made its closest approach to Sgr A*, the 4-million
solar mass supermassive black hole at the centre of the Milky Way,
reaching 7650 km/s or about 2.5% of the speed of light while passing the
black hole at a distance of just 120 AU, or 1400 Schwarzschild radii.

............................


In 2021, Mediavilla (IAC, Spain) & Jiménez-Vicente (UGR, Spain) were
able to use measurements of the gravitational redshift in quasars up to
cosmological redshift of z ≈ 3 to confirm the predictions of Einstein's
equivalence principle and the lack of cosmological evolution within
13%.[28]

---------------------------------------------------


THEN, WITH z = 6,842,736, THE LIGHT OF UY Scuti WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO
REACH EARTH, BECAUSE ITS DOPPLER EQUIVALENT RECESSION SPEED SHOULD BE
(ACCORDING TO CALCULATIONS) WOULD BE MUCH GREATER THAN c.

EVEN IF IT'S 100,000 LESS MASSIVE THAN THE PRIOR CALCULATIONS,z WOULD BE

z = 684.27


Yet, it's visible since 1860.

What is wrong (Wiki and the GR theory?).

[rhertz]

I wonder what Mediavilla (IAC, Spain) & Jiménez-Vicente (UGR, Spain)
would have to say about the above calculations.

As for "gravitational red-shifting" few relativists in this forum, this
post probably hit, painfully, a nerve of his web of beliefs.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Using the most common formula from that link: "To first approximation,
gravitational redshift is proportional to the difference in
gravitational potential divided by the speed of light squared"
Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = GM/c² (1/R - 1/r) = Φ(R)/c² - Φ(r)/c²
G = 6.6743E−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2
M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m

The mass is 'only' ~30 times the mass of Sun

M = 30 x 1.989E+30 kg = 5.967e+31 kg

Post by rhertz
Φ(R)/c² = 6,842,736.59
In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327
At r = 10,000,000 R = 10,077,800,000,000,000,000 m
Φ(r)/c² = 0.684273659
Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = 6,842,736
The z-value can be expressed succinctly in terms of the escape velocity
at R, since the gravitational potential is equal to half the square of
z = 1/2 (v_escape/c)²
v_escape = 3699.4 c
But then, light can escape from UY Scuti.
Yet, it was discovered in 1860.
WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY CALCULATIONS, BASED ON THE WIKI LINK?

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Using the most common formula from that link: "To first approximation,
gravitational redshift is proportional to the difference in
gravitational potential divided by the speed of light squared"
Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = GM/c² (1/R - 1/r) = Φ(R)/c² - Φ(r)/c²

Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² observed at infinity (r -> ∞)

https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html

Post by rhertz
G = 6.6743E−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2
M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m
Φ(R)/c² = 6,842,736.59

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
c = 299792458 m/s

Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² = 7.65e-7

Which is less than the red shift from the Sun.

Post by rhertz
In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327

M = 1.989E+30 kg
R = 696340e3 m

Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² = 2.12e-6

Post by rhertz
WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY CALCULATIONS, BASED ON THE WIKI LINK?

Now you know.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Using the most common formula from that link: "To first approximation,
gravitational redshift is proportional to the difference in
gravitational potential divided by the speed of light squared"
?f/f = ??/? = z = GM/c? (1/R - 1/r) = ?(R)/c? - ?(r)/c?

??/? = GM/Rc? observed at infinity (r -> ∞)
https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html

Post by rhertz
G = 6.6743E?11 m^3 kg^?1 s^?2
M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m
?(R)/c? = 6,842,736.59

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
c = 299792458 m/s
??/? = GM/Rc? = 7.65e-7
Which is less than the red shift from the Sun.

Post by rhertz
In comparison, ?(RSun)/c? = 0.000002327

M = 1.989E+30 kg
R = 696340e3 m
??/? = GM/Rc? = 2.12e-6

Post by rhertz
WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY CALCULATIONS, BASED ON THE WIKI LINK?

Now you know.

He is looking for trouble where none exists.
Even for neutron stars you get a nice finite gravitational redshift,
which is 'easily' observable. For example:
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12422210/>

They find a redshift value of z = 0.35 ,
which is consistent with standard neutron star models,
(but not with some exotic ones)

Jan

(such a large gravitational redshift dwarfs any possible Doppler shift)

[rhertz]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Using the most common formula from that link: "To first approximation,
gravitational redshift is proportional to the difference in
gravitational potential divided by the speed of light squared"
?f/f = ??/? = z = GM/c? (1/R - 1/r) = ?(R)/c? - ?(r)/c?

??/? = GM/Rc? observed at infinity (r -> ∞)
https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html

Post by rhertz
G = 6.6743E?11 m^3 kg^?1 s^?2
M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m
?(R)/c? = 6,842,736.59

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
c = 299792458 m/s
??/? = GM/Rc? = 7.65e-7
Which is less than the red shift from the Sun.

Post by rhertz
In comparison, ?(RSun)/c? = 0.000002327

M = 1.989E+30 kg
R = 696340e3 m
??/? = GM/Rc? = 2.12e-6

Post by rhertz
WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY CALCULATIONS, BASED ON THE WIKI LINK?

Now you know.

He is looking for trouble where none exists.
Even for neutron stars you get a nice finite gravitational redshift,
<https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12422210/>
They find a redshift value of z = 0.35 ,
which is consistent with standard neutron star models,
(but not with some exotic ones)
Jan
(such a large gravitational redshift dwarfs any possible Doppler shift)

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////


You forgot to read this, don't you? I posted it two posts above.

............................


In 2021, Mediavilla (IAC, Spain) & Jiménez-Vicente (UGR, Spain) were
able to use measurements of the gravitational redshift in quasars up to
cosmological redshift of z ≈ 3 to confirm the predictions of Einstein's
equivalence principle and the lack of cosmological evolution within
13%.[28]


---------------------------------------------------

[rhertz]

Post by Paul.B.Andersen

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Using the most common formula from that link: "To first approximation,
gravitational redshift is proportional to the difference in
gravitational potential divided by the speed of light squared"
Δf/f = Δλ/λ = z = GM/c² (1/R - 1/r) = Φ(R)/c² - Φ(r)/c²

Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² observed at infinity (r -> ∞)
https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html

Post by rhertz
G = 6.6743E−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2
M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m
Φ(R)/c² = 6,842,736.59

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
c = 299792458 m/s
Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² = 7.65e-7
Which is less than the red shift from the Sun.

Post by rhertz
In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327

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

Post by rhertz
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.


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
**************************************************************

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

This is another link:

Star UY Scuti is so big, you could fit 5 billion Suns inside it

https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/uy-scuti



Here it's claimed that they don't have a clue about its mass:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UY_Scuti


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

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by rhertz

Post by rhertz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_redshift
Using the most common formula from that link: "To first approximation,
gravitational redshift is proportional to the difference in
gravitational potential divided by the speed of light squared"
?f/f = ??/? = z = GM/c? (1/R - 1/r) = ?(R)/c? - ?(r)/c?

??/? = GM/Rc? observed at infinity (r -> ∞)
https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html

Post by rhertz
G = 6.6743E?11 m^3 kg^?1 s^?2
M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m
?(R)/c? = 6,842,736.59

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
c = 299792458 m/s
??/? = GM/Rc? = 7.65e-7
Which is less than the red shift from the Sun.

Post by rhertz
In comparison, ?(RSun)/c? = 0.000002327

M = 1.989E+30 kg
R = 696340e3 m
??/? = GM/Rc? = 2.12e-6

Post by rhertz
WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY CALCULATIONS, BASED ON THE WIKI LINK?

Now you know.

***************************************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
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
**************************************************************
You didn't even try to read the OP, from where I extracted the data,
idiot.
Star UY Scuti is so big, you could fit 5 billion Suns inside it
https://www.skyatnightmagazine.com/space-science/uy-scuti
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UY_Scuti
So, rela-astrophysicists come out with any shit, as they are not
accountable for what they publish.

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

[rhertz]

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

<snip>

Post by J. J. Lodder
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.

[rhertz]

Observe how this crap is published through the NSF site. I insist that
rela-astrophysicists know NOTHING!


Sharpest image to date of universe's most massive known star

https://new.nsf.gov/news/sharpest-image-date-universes-most-massive-known



Some quotes:

- Astronomers have yet to fully understand how the most massive stars —
those more than 100 times the mass of the sun — are formed.

- By pushing the capabilities of the Zorro instrument on the Gemini
South Telescope of the International Gemini Observatory, operated by the
U.S. National Science Foundation's NOIRLab, astronomers have obtained
the sharpest image to date of R136a1 — the most massive known star. The
findings are reported in The Astrophysical Journal

The colossal star is a member of the R136 star cluster, which lies about
160,000 light-years from Earth in the center of the Tarantula Nebula in
the Large Magellanic Cloud, a dwarf companion galaxy of the Milky Way.

Previous observations suggested that R136a1 had a mass somewhere between
250 to 320 times the mass of the sun. The new Zorro observations,
however, indicate that this giant star may be only 170 to 230 times the
mass of the sun. Even with this lower estimate, R136a1 still qualifies
as the most massive known star.

- Astronomers can estimate a star's mass by comparing its observed
brightness and temperature with theoretical predictions.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R136a1


In the Universe? What an ignorant title for this publication. The star
belongs to our galaxy!

What might exist, theoretically, with the other (allegedly) 100 billions
of galaxies that are estimated to exist in the "visible" universe?

As I wrote before, there are still using formulae that are more than 150
years old (temperature) and rather questionable ratios mass/luminosity,
elaborated since 1910 plus addendums about life span due to variations
of mc^2 and nuclear star furnace. The brighter, the shorter life.

What a farce astronomy has become. Pure bullshit, without the slightest
accountability of what is written and published. A world of lies. Just
think about dark matter and energy crap.

Modern astronomers know almost nothing, and cosmologists even much less.


And yet, recession radial speed given by alleged Doppler is still being
used, even when there is no single proof about it.

[ProkaryoticCaspaseHomolog]

Post by rhertz
Sharpest image to date of universe's most massive known star
https://new.nsf.gov/news/sharpest-image-date-universes-most-massive-known
... astronomers have obtained
the sharpest image to date of R136a1 — the most massive known star.
In the Universe? What an ignorant title for this publication. The star
belongs to our galaxy!

What is wrong with the expression, "the most massive KNOWN star"?

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz
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.

This is the link in your OP:
https://www.space.com/41290-biggest-star.html

Quote of relevant parts:

"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."

"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."

So this link you posted give R = 1700 solar radii and
M = 30 solar masses.

But the data _you_ extracted from the link was:

Den 28.09.2024 04:34, skrev rhertz:
| G = 6.6743E−11 m^3 kg^−1 s^−2
| M = 5E+09 x 1.989E+30 Kg = 9.945E+39 Kg
| R = 1,700 x 634,000 Km = 1,077,800,000,000 m

So no, you are not very good at reading.

People (like me) did indeed extract the right information
from the link in your posted, but YOU DID NOT!

And what's worse, you _accepted_ that the mass is 5 billion
solar masses without wondering if it was possible!
Your ignorance is unbelievable!

And what's even worse is that when I told you that you had
got the mass wrong, you responded:
"You didn't even try to read the OP, from where I extracted
the data, idiot."

Who is the idiot? :-D

Again and again you demonstrate your inability to read
a text and understand what you read.

------------------------

I have however looked closer for information about UY Scuti

This is from a star catalogue:
https://www.stellarcatalog.com/stars/uy-scuti
It gives the data:
R = 1708 solar radii, Mass = 8 solar masses.

This seems to be the newest (2024-03-10):
https://www.star-facts.com/uy-scuti/
Quote:
" UY Scuti is a previous record holder for the largest star known.
The supergiant star was believed to lie at a much greater distance
– 9,500 light-years away – and had an estimated radius of 1,708 solar
radii. More recent studies place it much closer and give it a smaller
size."
"The estimated mass of UY Scuti is between 7 and 10 times the mass
of the Sun."
"UY Scuti has a radius about 909 times that of the Sun."

With M = 8 solar masses and R = 909 solar radii we get the red shift:

Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² = 1.87e-8

This is equivalent to the Doppler shift from a star receding
at the speed 5.6 m/s.

Since the radial velocity of the star is 18.33 ± 0.82 km/s,
the uncertainty in the Doppler shift due to the motion of the star
will dwarf the gravitational red shift.

You know of course how they measure the Doppler shift from
a star. Offset of absorption lines, Balmer series, etc.

Post by rhertz
From Wikipedia, two different values for mass and a remarkable "MASS IS
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.

Don't you think Stefan–Boltzmann law is applicable today? :-D

You have demonstrated that you are utterly ignorant of astronomy
and astrophysics.

If you had more than one neuron, you wouldn't claim
that experts in a field you know _nothing_ about were idiots.

[Paul.B.Andersen]

Post by rhertz

 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

Post by rhertz

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

Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² = 3.74e-8

even smaller!

Post by rhertz

Which is less than the red shift from the Sun.

Post by rhertz
In comparison, Φ(RSun)/c² = 0.000002327

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

Post by rhertz
WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY CALCULATIONS, BASED ON THE WIKI LINK?

Now you know.

***************************************************************
--------------------------------------------------------------------
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.

Post by rhertz
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."

Post by rhertz
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.

Post by rhertz
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