no clue whatsoever...
oh, actually:
http://hypertextbook.com/facts/2006/KristineMcPherson.shtml
or: "The calculated mass of the universe ranges anywhere from 10^53 kg to 10^60 kg"
because mass can be considered equivalent to energy, apparently...
I'm not a physcist by any stretch of the imagination
Originally posted by MindshipApproximation is still possible considering you can calculate Mass/Energy with spatial curvature caused by the force of Gravity.
Hard to say, given 75% of it is a complete mystery.
This is the reason why we know that visible matter makes up only 5% of the observable universe and darkmater makes out about 23% and the 72% is darkenergy.
So we can calculate the mass of visible energy/mass and invisible matter and energy.
Originally posted by kgkgIsn't 'approximation' implied by 'hard to say'? As in, "Well, it's hard to say; I can't give you an exact figure."
Approximation is still possible considering you can calculate Mass/Energy with spatial curvature caused by the force of Gravity.This is the reason why we know that visible matter makes up only 5% of the observable universe and darkmater makes out about 23% and the 72% is darkenergy.
So we can calculate the mass of visible energy/mass and invisible matter and energy.
😛
Originally posted by MindshipYes but it has nothing to do with darkmatter/energy being a complete mystery. What I was trying to say was that we can calculate what we know and what we don't know pretty much at the similar accuracy level. 😛
Isn't 'approximation' implied by 'hard to say'? As in, "Well, it's hard to say; I can't give you an exact figure."😛
You still have the Surfer sig heh