I do not think so.

You provide no reason do doubt the source I quoted.

what about the **dark energy**?

what about **dark matter**?

Dark energy is included in the Friedmann equation as the cosmological constant: the [math]\Omega_{\Lambda}[/math] term. Dark matter is included in the [math]\Omega_M[/math] term. In the context of a Friedmann–Lemaître universe they do nothing to solve the flatness/oldness problem I outlined in my last post.

This things is still **unknown**

The effect of both are known.

then I think this calculus are missing this two importants elements .

Calculus is a branch of mathematics dealing with limits, derivatives and integrals.

Neither dark energy nor dark matter are missing from relativistic physics or missing from the standard Lamda-CDM cosmological model. Purple unicorns

*are* missing from cosmological models, but if you think they would solve the flatness/oldness problem then you must demonstrate how they do that.

If the universe had 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016.2 gm/cc

*also* the same thing could be said If the universe had 447,225,917,218,507,401,284,016.0 gm/cc

we do *not* had a singularity.

Besides it we still could have infinite possibility between 0 and 0.2.

For you it is "tinny" the difference between this density, because it is a **human value**

because I can say if the diference was not 0,2 but 0,000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000002

it s a *realy* tinny diferencem and 0,2 is to large. only human value.

You have already had the logic of that argument corrected. Here is the problem as it is typically described:

In the early universe [math]\Omega[/math] is the ratio of the energy density to the critical density at that time. In the Lambda-CDM cosmology favoured by astronomers, the early universe is dominated by radiation, then by matter. In this case, if [math]\Omega[/math] is much greater than 1, the universe quickly recollapses in a Big crunch. If [math]\Omega[/math] is much less than one, the universe expands so quickly that matter cannot collapse under gravity to form galaxies or stars. If the current value of [math]\Omega[/math] is extrapolated back to the **Planck time the value of [math]\Omega[/math] is such that [math]\Omega = 1 \pm 10^{-60}[/math]**. That this value is so close to the critical value when it could take on any value at all is regarded as a highly improbable coincidence.

Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Astrophysics (S. K. Basu) 2007 p.103And from wikipedia:

This tiny value is the crux of the flatness problem. If the initial density of the universe could take any value, it would seem extremely surprising to find it so 'finely tuned' to the critical value [math]\rho_c[/math]. Indeed, a very small departure of Ω from 1 in the early universe would have been magnified during billions of years of expansion to create a current density very far from critical. In the case of an overdensity ([math]\rho > \rho_c[/math]) this would lead to a universe so dense it would cease expanding and collapse into a Big Crunch (an opposite to the Big Bang in which all matter and energy falls back into an incredibly dense state) in a few years or less; in the case of an underdensity ([math]\rho < \rho_c[/math]) it would expand so quickly and become so sparse it would soon seem essentially empty, and gravity would not be strong enough by comparison to cause matter to collapse and form galaxies. **In either case the universe would contain no complex structures such as galaxies, stars, planets and people.**

Flatness problem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaIt is partly because of this problem that cosmologists propose, and many advocate, inflationary models of cosmology as a real solution to the very real problem described above. I personally wonder if freely coasting cosmology which does not have the problem above might have some validity to it.

You, on the other hand, say that [math]1 \pm 10^{-60}[/math] is an infinite set of real numbers implying that a randomly generated number between, let's say, 0 and 10 is likely to fall within [math]1 \pm 10^{-60}[/math]. That is not good reasoning.

It is highly improbable that a randomly generated density... it is, in fact, 10^61 times more likely that some other density between 0 and 10 outside the acceptable range would be randomly generated. That's about how many atoms there are in the visible universe. If every atom in the visible universe represented a different range of density at the Plank time between [math]\Omega = 0[/math] and [math]\Omega = 10[/math] then there would be one correct atom with an acceptable Omega representing [math]1 \pm 10^{-60}[/math]. It is highly unlikely that such an atom would be picked randomly... randomly picking one atom out of the billions of galaxies in the visible universe... the correct one... unlikely.

There are possible solutions to the flatness problem, but ignoring the problem doesn't solve it. Saying "if the changing [fundamental constant] is very tinny I think it is no problem." doesn't mean there is no problem. Saying that [math]1 \pm 10^{-60}[/math] is only a human value and may not be "tiny" doesn't solve the problem.

~modest