Talk:Mass of the observable universe

What is Mass referring to?
We seem to be having problems with baryonic vs. all matter here. When reading, I assumed that the first paragraph was referring to the density from $$\Omega_{matter} = \Omega_{baryonic} + \Omega_{dm}$$, which shouldn't give nearly the same value as the stellar estimate of total baryonic mass. --Philosophus T 20:46, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The source says that it "includes the contribution of dark matter". Your task, Jim, should you choose to accept it: Find sources that are more explicit about their premises and assumptions.  I'm sure that the three cited here are not the only sources on this subject. &#9786; Uncle G 23:47, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
 * this source comes up with roughly the same figure via another formula, as does this source. Uncle G 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Units
Units should be in an upright typeface. Not sure how to do this myself in TeX without the SIUnits package. --대조 | Talk 16:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Units again
Why is it all in CGS units? What's wrong with SI? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.7.20.133 (talk) 22:22, 18 January 2007 (UTC).

Proposed merger
I'm proposing to merge this article into the Observable universe article because I think the Matter content section of the other article gives a far less confusing treatment. The distinction between estimates of stellar mass and total mass is not clear in this article. The 2 references use wildly different approximations for the size of the observable universe (10 billion vs 14 billions light years) and the value of $$3x10^{30}$$}kg for the mass of the Sun in the second reference is out by a factor of 2/3, so it's pure chance that they happen to arrive at the same value.

The discussion will take place here.

Cosmo0 20:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Concur. I've entered a comment on the other talk page.  --Parsifal Hello 07:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)


 * No dissention, so I've completed the merge. --Parsifal Hello 07:37, 1 October 2007 (UTC)