Calculating mass of the universe

Originally posted by @humy

1. No known boundaries:

So just estimate the mass of the observable universe; problem solved.

Black holes: Calculating the mass of a large number of vacuums with no known size is impossible without conventional points of reference.

You are talking gibberish. Mass is something that may or may not be contained within ...[text shortened]... massive amount, ...[/quote]
their estimate is unlikely to be off by a 'massive' amount.

I apologize deeply for my "gibberish" Please, don't let me stop you from doing your calculations....

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
And you don't?

Of course I do, but that wasn't his original position.

Originally posted by @eladar
Of course I do, but that wasn't his original position.

no, it was never my position that you can calculate the volume of the entire universe i.e. including beyond the observable universe. I challenge you to show where I said the contrary.

Originally posted by @humy
no, it was never my position that you can calculate the volume of the entire universe i.e. including beyond the observable universe. I challenge you to show where I said the contrary.

Isn't this thread about calculating the volume of the Universe?

Originally posted by @eladar
Isn't this thread about calculating the volume of the Universe?

No.
And if it was, it would be about estimating the volume of only the observable universe.

Originally posted by @humy
No.
And if it was, it would be about estimating the volume of only the observable universe.

It says the mass of the universe. The universe is the universe, not the known universe. Do you think the universe is only the known universe?

Originally posted by @eladar
It says the mass of the universe. The universe is the universe, not the known universe. Do you think the universe is only the known universe?

"observable universe" ≠ "entire universe"

and

"our universe" ≠ "all universes"

For obvious reasons, when physicists talk about "estimating the mass of the universe", they always mean the observable universe else that wouldn't make any sense as they all KNOW we don't know the size of the entire universe (as in including beyond the observable) thus, without that critical piece of info of size, cannot possibly estimate its mass. This is obvious.

Originally posted by @humy
"observable universe" ≠ "entire universe"

and

"our universe" ≠ "all universes"

The distinction of ours vs all was made.

The distinction between known and entire was not.

But it is OK, I was asking for clarification and you gave it. You gave ot in a defensive rrsponse, but it was there.

Originally posted by @eladar

The distinction between known and entire was not.

the "entire universe", unless that is said as "entire observable universe", is generally by default meant to mean all the parts of it we can observe plus all the parts of it we cannot. I have observed cosmologists usually using the term in that way.

Originally posted by @humy
the "entire universe", unless that is said as "entire observable universe", is generally by default meant to mean all the parts of it we can observe plus all the parts of it we cannot. I have observed cosmologists usually using the term in that way.

So default is a faulty statement. I understand. We just pretend in science. Got it.

Originally posted by @eladar
So default is a faulty statement. I understand. We just pretend in science. Got it.

If by 'we' you mean creationists, the you're right. You and alike just pretend science.
Intelligent design is just such pretending, mimicking science.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Here is a professional astronomer, Phd, what he said:
"What is the mass of the Universe? (Intermediate)
What is the mass of the Universe? Also how can you prove that this is the true mass of the Universe?

As nobody knows the size of the universe, one cannot really talk about the mass of the universe, though one can talk about the mass of the observabl ...[text shortened]... t the observable universe. And I think he didn't take into account dark matter, not sure though.

We know that our universe is *not* infinite in size, right? We know what the mean density of the universe that we see, right? And we know that the universe has a diameter of at least 93 billion light years, then we know the minimum limit of how much mass there is in the universe.

Thomas Pilgaard says:
"... the 46 billion light years figure is the current radius of the observable universe (giving it a diameter of ~93 billion light years). 46 billion light years in either direction are objects that are currently at that distance of 46 billion light years away, but whose light has just reached us after being emitted 13.8 billion years ago."

Frank Heile, Ph.D. in Physics from Stanford University says
"So, the diameter of 93 billion light years is, at most, a theoretical estimate of the current distance of all the matter that we can NOW see, even if the light we see is 13.8 billion years old."

This is what we know now. I'm sure that we will eventually find out the magnitude of the inflation just after t=0, so the true size of our universe is not at all unknowable, if you ask me.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
If by 'we' you mean creationists, the you're right. You and alike just pretend science.
Intelligent design is just such pretending, mimicking science.

Having a rough day?

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
We know that our universe is *not* infinite in size, right? We know what the mean density of the universe that we see, right? And we know that the universe has a diameter of at least 93 billion light years, then we know the minimum limit of how much mass there is in the universe.

Thomas Pilgaard says:
"... the 46 billion light years figure is the cur ...[text shortened]... lation just after t=0, so the true size of our universe is not at all unknowable, if you ask me.

Is there a reason the universe can't be infinite?

Originally posted by @eladar
Is there a reason the universe can't be infinite?

Because from the beginning the universe wasn't infinite, but a point. It was finite right after t=0.
If it would be infinite today, then it has, in one point in time, gone from being finite to being infinite. When would that be? See the logical flaw here?