[Flipside]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13462926

Interesting article, my only concern is that I thought it was Dark Matter that made up a lot of the missing mass, not energy, which was something seperate. Admittedly I haven't been keeping up with the latest findings, but I found the comment that energy could make up part of a volume rather weird. Maybe it's just the way the article is worded.

[General Battuta]

Dark matter accounts for a small portion of the missing mass, dark energy for the overwhelming majority. They're different beasts.

[Flipside]

Yup, most of my confusion comes from the very old concept that photons in particular and energy in general have no mass, which isn't strictly true. I guess I'll have to do a bit of research

[Mongoose]

Someone brought this to my attention the other night, and I was chuckling over the typical misleading headline.  The data only "confirms" dark energy in the same sense that any positive result "confirms" a particular theoretical model.  Interesting, sure, but it's not like someone snagged a cup of the stuff.

[watsisname]

Yep, that's basically it.  Even energy has an intrinsic "mass" to it, given by the famous equation E=mc².

Dark matter makes up the majority of the matter in the universe (outweighing "normal" matter by about a factor of five), while dark energy makes up the majority of the total mass, and "outweighs" dark matter by almost a factor of three.

I also find this is a useful chart.   I think this one is using the data from WMAP.

[Davros]

[Snail]

lol

[watsisname]

Hang on, are we part that resembles Pac-man or are we the other part?

[Turambar]

.03% Represent!