in this universe are Masive stars Younger than smaller stars ... Relitivisticly ?

Question

Hello !

why in a relitivity univers when stars are massive ,
with Equaly Masive Gravities wouldent those stars be younger than the rest of the milky way from a distence ?
becouse as physics stats time lasts longer under gravity
more time = les gravity
so massive stars evolve slower dont they !?
small stars like ours last less time and make more heat becouse time goes faster

all rights reserved
alien_stories : http://www.flickr.com/groups/alien_stories
Nice Photos http://www.flickr.com/photos/quality-photos
My nice blog http://uk.blog.360.yahoo.com/blog-KAjGw0g1bq2P18ZB9JKMjynO8KOX?

Answer 1

More massive stars use up their hydrogen faster and run out sooner than less massive stars. But the density of those more massive stars is still way, way too small to allow relativistic gravitational effects to slow time down by even 1%.

Answer 2

Well as previously stated, more massive stars have shorter lifespans than less massive stars due to their faster rate of fusion. So it is only natural that the smaller mass stars that are several billion years old are older than massive stars.
However, your question did remind me of an astrophysics problem from my college days. The problem involved two eclipsing binary stars in close proximity with a short sideral period. The problem was to determine the orbital velocity and then determine if the life expectancy of the stars was extended due to time dilation.
As it turned out, they were, but the percentage of life expectancy increase was very very low.

Answer 3

Only black holes create orbital speeds at close to the speed of light, and only then once within the event horizons. You'll need what help you can get once you're there.

Answer 4

ok, i like it, but I am apparently not smart enough to leave a comment like these guys have.