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?
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
WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY CALCULATIONS, BASED ON THE WIKI LINK?
Den 28.09.2024 04:34, skrev 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"
?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
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.
In comparison, ?(RSun)/c? = 0.000002327
M = 1.989E+30 kg
R = 696340e3 m
??/? = GM/Rc? = 2.12e-6
WHAT IS WRONG WITH MY CALCULATIONS, BASED ON THE WIKI LINK?
Now you know.
On Sun, 29 Sep 2024 11:42:18 +0000, Paul.B.Andersen wrote:
Den 28.09.2024 04:34, skrev 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"
?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
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.
In comparison, ?(RSun)/c? = 0.000002327
M = 1.989E+30 kg
R = 696340e3 m
??/? = GM/Rc? = 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.
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.
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
c = 299792458 m/s
Δλ/λ = GM/Rc² = 7.65e-7
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.
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:
You didn't even try to read the OP, from where I extracted the data,
idiot.
So, rela-astrophysicists come out with any shit, as they are not
accountable for what they publish.
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.
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.
Sysop: | Keyop |
---|---|
Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
Users: | 366 |
Nodes: | 16 (3 / 13) |
Uptime: | 06:50:24 |
Calls: | 7,826 |
Calls today: | 9 |
Files: | 12,930 |
Messages: | 5,769,248 |
Posted today: | 1 |