>>10948838Binding energy such as a gravitational potential energy is given the opposite sign to classical kinetic energy. Therefore, although the universe gravitates with an energy density that would demand non-flatness, when you account for the kinetic energy of the expanding universe, the total energy is close enough to zero that the universe looks flat.
This is actually one of the few issues in cosmology that my model does not immediately clear up: We have theorems which show, convincingly IMO, that the total energy of the universe is non-zero (positive- or negative-definite), but then we also have real astrophysical data showing at most a very small deviation from global flatness in the universe. Therefore, this data suggest that the total energy of the universe is really close to zero. For simplifying models then, we should assume perfect flatness and zero total energy, but this contradicts the energy theorem.
