What if.. The Universe just has long periods of expansion and contraction?

Rikusaki

I did reply to the thread you started on system wars but when i came back to it...locked! :(

Anyway, yeah that is possible but that makes some of the current observations, especially those of WMAP and the CMB (cosmic microwave background) really hard to explain. The CMB is the first visible light left over from when the universe had expanded and cooled enough to become tranparent. Before this point, the universe was too dense and hot for light to travel any distance. This light was emitted around 300k years after the big bang. The universe has since had 13.5 billion years to expand, the light waves emitted have become so stretched out that their wavelength has increased. Their wavelength is no longer the length of visible light but of microwaves.

Now this cosmic microwave background radiation is very very uniform. No matter where you point your radio dish, its there. This gives cosmologists a very good idea to the shape of the universe, size and age. The CMB could only exist as it does if light was emmited early on in an expanding universe. Now this isn't evidence of a big bang itself but further investigation shows that the temperature of the CMB also gives clues to conditions of the universe at the time the CMB was created, it also gives us an insight into which models best fit what we observe today.

This is all based on the WMAP satellite, which so far is not sensitive enough to show whether the early universe did go through a period known as 'inflation'. The CMB is the earliest observable data we have on the early universe but it does fit in with a whole lot of other data that shows the universe from expanding and that in the past it was much hotter and much much more dense. We also know that it is the space itself expanding and not the matter flying apart. This means that in the past, space was smaller, rewind then tape even further and using what we know from quantum physics and the interactions of sub atomic particles in very high energy conditions, we have built a very detailed picture of the first moments of the universe.

However, those first few moments will never be observable. What we do then is look for indirect evidence. Evidence that supports our understanding of quantum physics, cosmology, m-theory/string and quantum-gravity. By peicing together what we do know, we can build a model of the big bang. But it is worth noting that when we start to look at the actual moment of creation, our models start to deal with infinite numbers. When we start to approach the plank scale (the insanely small) our understanding of physics breaks down.

Hope that explains it somehow :)

[QUOTE="thejakel11225"]

Its been proven that the universe is expanding(I.e moving away from each other) meaning that at one point the entire universe was condensed in a single point and ....well.....blew up

and what's this doing in SW?

whatisazerg

WRONG....

but wrong board also.

Actually its true, first proven by Edwin Hubble who showed that galaxies that were significantly away from our own had a shift in spectrum (known as redshift) that indicates they are moving away. This has been studied and observed since. In fact in 1999 by looking at type 1A supernovae, astronomer have now shown that the expansion of the universe was actually lower in the past which means that the rate of expansion of the universe is increasing.

But as to whether the universe is expanding or not, you'll need to overcome the last century's worth of consistent observations that say it is!

[QUOTE="AnnoyedDragon"]

[QUOTE="lowe0"]Your exact words were "no console gamers". I'm a console gamer, so yes, I'm in the category you specified. lowe0

The category of people who only play on consoles and have little to no understanding of PC gaming? Would you have actually preferred if I used a provocative term like consolite? I'm referring to people who never played Crysis but deemed themselves fit to make judgements on its worth, people who are now suddenly interested and impressed because it is coming to their platform of choice.

In other words fanboys.

Are we done?

Stop playing dumb man, you know what he was referring to, the countless Crysis bashers (who were pretty much console gamers) who have now changed their tune since Crysis 2 is coming to consoles. He is simply pointing out that those people who did that (there were some cus I remember many nashing threads and can even remeber a few of their names ) are hypocrites. Its not complicated lol.

[QUOTE="steve17989"]

[QUOTE="Adrian_Cloud"] How about using YOUR own opinion to back things up for once?

Adrian_Cloud

Because his opinion doesn't have as much weight as several high scoring reviews do.

Do you even understand the concept of being objective?

How about using YOUR own opinion to back things up? = sigworthy :lol:

You can't back things up with your own opinion, thats not backing things up.

Consolites, do you not understand yet that Crysis was reviewed by many game sites and magazines and the majority praised the game. Here at gamespot its a AAA! It scored that because of the gameplay, sure you personally may not have enjoyed it and may have found a few glitches and bugs but that is your opinion of the game.

So please stop saying it has rubbish gameplay, it doesnt, no matter how much you want that to be true. Like I said, it has been widely praised so stop saying it has bad gameplay as if it is some kind of fact, its just YOUR OPINION lol.

Probably just to get more traffic to their site lol.

I can only say wow! Love it! Couldn't get the last video to play though :(

[QUOTE="muscleserge"][QUOTE="Asim90"]

To be honest they went over the top with Crysis, nobody in real life has skin like that. Why is his skin so overly spotty? It just looks weird.

hakanakumono

It's still not realistic. He looks like his face recovered from severe acid burns.

And no, nobody has pores the size of grains of rice.

They are acne scars, lots of people have them lol.

[QUOTE="-Ichigo1987-"]

[QUOTE="treedoor"]

Crysis looks better than all console games.

SexySasquatch11

Thats subjective, not the rule like people seem to think in these threads. People feel the need to post a Crysis pic in any thread about Graphics. Its really annoying

^ This. I think Crysis is an ugly game and I've seen it played on High all maxed out. The best looking game I've ever played is Eternal Sonata. Now that game is breath taking...

Artsytle makes a game, not the number of polys one game can push.

Thats literally like saying cartoons are better than movies. Maybe so for you but not everyone. By the way, pushing more polys, generally speaking means much more detailed graphics, along with lighting, textures, normal mapping etc.

Art = subjective

Polys = objective

I think you're confusing textures for character models.

Strip the amount of textures on the Crysis models down to the same on Heavy Rain and you'll see where you're going wrong.

And, uh, Mass Effect? No. I like the character models in Mass Effect. They're very pleasing to the eye, but it can't compete with Heavy Rain.

Pariah-

Ok so strip the textures off the Crysis model and what do you have? A wireframe model, now are you going to tell me, heavy rain character models are rendered using more polys than the characters in Crysis? Crysis running on 'very high'?

Also how can the character models not compete? Maybe they are not rendered using as much polys as the Heavy Rain models but they have very high resolution textures and really impressive normal mapping. They most certainly do 'compete' with heavy rain's models.