Yes, but...
>The
>cosmological density doesn't come into the question directly, although
>many scientists no doubt hope the missing mass sets omega=1.
even accounting for that leaves the amount of mass needed under current
estimates between one tenth and one hundredth that need to "close" the
universe -- i.e., give it global positive curvature. I've talked to a few
friends
of mine who have backgrounds in the field, and they agree. They believe
that the cosmologists who subscribe to positive curvature are far from
proving their case. I suspect other motives at work -- such as intuition:
an open, infinite and everexpanding universe is not neat and simple like
a finite, closed one that bounces back and forth.
Daniel Ust