Karena 84:1, 69:16, 55:37 dan 21:104 semuanya benar, pertanyaannya 'mungkinkah universe yang flat akhirnya akan menggulung (deformasi) karena kerapatan material universe terus menurun akibat ekspansi?'.
Dengan umpan 'universe maintains flatness in expansion' beberapa ikan terpancing dari kolam google;
> Umum; flatness problem & fine-tuning to very 'special' values.
The flatness problem (also known as the oldness problem) is a cosmological fine-tuning problem within the Big Bang model of the universe. Such problems arise from the observation that some of the initial conditions of the universe appear to be fine-tuned to very 'special' values, and that a small deviation from these values would have had massive effects on the nature of the universe at the current time.
In the case of the flatness problem, the parameter which appears fine-tuned is the density of matter and energy in the universe. This value affects the curvature of space-time, with a very specific critical value being required for a flat universe. The current density of the universe is observed to be very close to this critical value. Since the total density departs rapidly from the critical value over cosmic time, the early universe must have had a density even closer to the critical density, departing from it by one part in 1062 or less. This leads cosmologists to question how the initial density came to be so closely fine-tuned to this 'special' value.
The problem was first mentioned by Robert Dicke in 1969. The most commonly accepted solution among cosmologists is cosmic inflation, the idea that the universe went through a brief period of extremely rapid expansion in the first fraction of a second after the Big Bang; along with the monopole problem and the horizon problem, the flatness problem is one of the three primary motivations for inflationary theory.
Some cosmologists agreed with Dicke that the flatness problem was a serious one, in need of a fundamental reason for the closeness of the density to criticality. But there was also a school of thought which denied that there was a problem to solve, arguing instead that since the universe must have some density it may as well have one close to

as far from it, and that speculating on a reason for any particular value was "beyond the domain of science".
(Wikipedia).
Fine-tuned to very 'special' values, "beyond the domain of science" -deja vu, udah sering ketemu kalimat seperti.
> Matter density was assumed to be key to geometry.
Matter density was assumed to be key to geometry – and estimates of the matter density of our universe came to around 0.2 atoms per cubic metre, while the relevant part of the Friedmann equations calculated that the critical density required to keep our universe flat would be 5 atoms per cubic metre. Since we could only find 4% of the required critical density, this suggested that we probably lived in an open universe – but then we started coming up with ways to measure the universe’s geometry directly.
This is done with cosmic microwave background data (from WMAP and earlier experiments) – where the CMB mapped on the sky represents one side of a triangle with you at its opposite apex looking out along its two other sides. The angles of the triangle can then be measured, which will add up to 180 degrees in a flat (Euclidean) universe, more than 180 in a closed universe and less than 180 in an open universe.
These findings, indicating that the universe was remarkably flat, came at the turn of the century around the same time that the 1998 accelerated expansion finding was announced.
So really, it is the universe’s flatness and the estimate that there is only 4% (0.2 atoms per metre) of the matter density required to keep it flat that drives us to call on dark stuff to explain the universe. Indeed we can’t easily call on just matter, light or dark, to account for how our universe sustains its critical density in the face of expansion, let alone accelerated expansion – since whatever it is appears out of nowhere. So, we appeal to dark energy to make up the deficit – without having a clue what it is.
(Universe Today).
Energy density and the Friedmann equation.
According to Einstein's field equations of general relativity, the structure of spacetime is affected by the presence of matter and energy. On small scales space appears flat – as does the surface of the Earth if one looks at a small area. On large scales however, space is bent by the gravitational effect of matter. Since relativity indicates that matter and energy are equivalent, this effect is also produced by the presence of energy (such as light and other electromagnetic radiation) in addition to matter. The amount of bending (or curvature) of the universe depends on the density of matter/energy present.
This relationship can be expressed by the first Friedmann equation.
(Wikipedia).
> The universe will evolve away from flatness. Open-closed transition = open - flat - closed. Flat -> closed = menggulung ?.
Q : Does it also imply that if the universe is flat the density parameter is and always has been exactly one? Or is a open-flat transition not considered a topology change?
A : I see -- now I think I understand what you're getting at.
First off, keep in mind that spatial curvature is not the same thing as spacetime curvature. When we say that the universe is flat, we mean that its spatial curvature is zero, but its spacetime curvature is not.
Exact flatness requires that a physical parameter take on an exact value. In general, we don't expect that the evolution of any physical system will result, with any finite probability, in any parameter's attaining an exact value and retaining that exact value for any finite time interval. So I think it makes more sense physically to talk about an open-closed transition. That would definitely be a topology change.
In general, the Friedmann equations predict that the universe will evolve away from flatness.
The fact that the universe evolves away from flatness in realistic cosmological models is consistent with the more general theorem saying that we can't have topology change in GR* (without exotic matter or CTCs). To get topology change, you would have to evolve *toward* flatness and then cross the line.
(Physics Forum).
* = general relativity.
> Q verse 'embedded' in initial conditions of the universe, 14 billion years ago ?.
The ‘problem’ is that for the Universe to be so close to critical density after ~ 14 billion years of expansion and evolution, it must have been even closer at earlier times. For instance, it requires the density at the Planck time (within 10-43 seconds of the Big Bang) to be within 1 part in 1057 of the critical density. i.e. Ω0 initially must have been almost exactly:
1.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
There is no known reason for the density of the Universe to be so close to the critical density, and this appears to be an unacceptably strange coincidence in the view of most astronomers. Hence the flatness ‘problem’.
Dengan konteks 'there is no known reason for the density of the Universe to be so close to the critical density, and this appears to be an unacceptably strange coincidence in the view of most astronomers' makna deretan angka di bawah jadi gamblang ;
1.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
-------------------------------->1 = (The Knower of all secrets and declarations,) be He
-> 60 nol di belakang dot = exalted, far above having a partner (23:92).
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/F/Flatness+Problem