Rien

The "Big Crunch" is an integral part of the Big Bang Theory. All matter exhibits some small amount of gravtitational force which attracts other matter (although the force is generally so small that only objects of very large mass can exert enough gravity for us to recognize this (e.g. planets, stars, black holes, etc...)). Now, the reason why the entire universe doesn't collapse in on itself suddenly (due to gravity), is because there are a myriad of other forces currently at work as well (two significant examples being general electron repulsion and the ongoing, outward repulsion caused by the Big Bang). However, as time passes, energy/mass will be progressively broken down (second law of thermodynamics), which will greatly decrease the effects of electrin repulsion (matter in a lower-energy state would not have as many electron shells, hence the shielding would be lessened). Additionally, the force caused by the Big Bang (essentially inertia) would decrease over time as well (since the force of the inertia would continue to lose energy). Now, time would cause for the expansion of the universe to gradually slow, and the forces working against gravitational attraction would one day decrease to the point that they would no longer be able to continue to override the attraction. Once this happens, the process would begin to reverse itself as matter would start attracting other matter - forming "clumps" throughout the universe of increasing large mass which would exert more potent gravity (attracting yet more matter to each clump). In time, these clumps would become so massive that their own forces of gravity would cause them to collapse into themselves and create black holes. In turn, these black holes - scattered across the universe - would begin converging on each other into a singular point consisting of all of the mass and energy in the universe (Big Crunch). Subsequently, a Big Bang would occur, as the effect of having all available energy and mass in the universe compressed into a single point instantaneously would be quite volatile (I'm sure you can imagine). I do believe, in my own way, that the universe is "God". The only difference (in my thinking) is that the universe is not conscious. As for your challenge, the answer is quite simple: Mass and Energy are eternal, as they can neither be created nor destroyed - only converted/transferred. Concerning the underlined section, mass and energy cannot decompose into something "useless". They can degenerate into lower-energy states, but all that is needed for this to change is to reintroduce the degenerated material with other degenerated material so that they may share/transfer electrons and bond (covalently, ionically, etc...). The universe is eternal; its individual incarnations are not. And yes, the nature of God isn't exactly something that can be debated, but I would think that a supernatural being (by definition) would exist "outside"/be "incompatible" with our natural world. I understand your meaning, though; it was probably just a bad word choice on my part. At any rate, it all seems like supposition to me (there existing an almighty, supernatural being paradoxically part of, and yet transcending, the universe), but that's strictly my opinion. I respect that there are many others who disagree with me. Because God created us to love Him. And you can't truly love something unless you choose to love it. This is why God gave us free will. If the Bible had been written in such a way that no one could ever possibly hope to argue against it, how would that be choosing to love God? I don't understand your point here. Wars have been fought simply because certain passages in the Bible are vague and the opposing factions interpreted them differently. Would it not have been better if God had written out everything literally or had at least provided defined explanations for the metaphorical passages? People could have still "chosen" whether to believe the Bible or not, and it would have had the added bonus of not instigating bloody conflicts amongst the believers. <--- This was the point I was trying to make in that quote. Also, at the risk of opening another can of worms ( :lol: ), if God is omniscient and is our creator, then how can 'free will' exist?

You provide no support for your argument, so why should I bother to find it for you? And besides, I'm more interested in this to begin with: Earlier, you claimed: If this is true, then why would you hesitate to reveal them (since you seem confident that nothing can be done about them anyway)? That's lovely.

How can you expect for anyone to believe you when you refuse to offer any form of evidence? I'm not going to trawl through shady RWT websites which may or may not infect my computer just to find support for YOUR argument, sorry. Is it really so difficult to answer a simple question? List your infallible RWT methods and I'll take you a bit more seriously.

'Sorry, double post.

I don't believe anyone's foolish enough to suggest that RWT has been completely eradicated, but it's certainly been significantly reduced (enough to satisfy the real-world banks and credit companies, at least). So, while the restrictions to trade and such can be an annoyance to everyday players, I believe Jagex was justified in establishing them. At this point, however, I can't see that there's much more Jagex can do; they've done well enough considering what they're up against, but RWT will most likely always exist in some form - no matter what actions they ultimately take to combat it. :mellow: pika pika

Most active spammer, you say? Being quite the spammer myself today, along with my pika pals, I'll give you an 8/10 (one-day offer, only). :P pika pika

Yes, pikachu wins. ;)

1 Pikachu can never be defeated. :lol:

3/10 'Sorry, not a fan of memes or Mr. G&W. :P

^ Knows not the way of the pikachu < Has been enlightened v Pika pika?

One pikachu~~~ pika pika

Pikachu wins. ;)

It's surprisingly good, actually. Although, this is coming from someone who enjoys pizza with ranch dressing. :lol:

I think you misunderstood. The second law of thermodynamics does not state that energy "escapes" the universe (which I agree is a closed system, obviously). It says that all energy and compounds break down into something less complex and less useful. So eventually everything will break down so much that it no longer has any use. I don't understand how you can claim that when the energy in the universe approaches absolute zero it can suddenly gain enough energy to revert in on itself. Surely by the point that there is almost no energy left in the universe, all objects would be far enough away from each other that their gravitational pull can not reach far enough to pull them back. Explain this please? I understand the thermodynamic laws. Eventually, as time passes and the universe continues to expand, mass/energy would slowly "disperse" throughout space (much like an ideal gas) and would degenerate into more "fundamental" components/particles. However, your underlined statement is incorrect; before they would be able to disperse to such a degree, the force exerted by the outward expansion of the universe would have become too weak (the kinetic energy driving the expansion would be approaching absolute zero, after all) to continue to overcome the gravitational attractive forces between the bits of matter, and the "clumping effect" would soon begin as a result (causing a Big Crunch in a matter of time). I can not pretend to be able to explain his exact reasons, as he is a far more experienced scientist/astrophysicist than I could ever hope to be. But you could actually read his book if you were interested. I'm not disputing that this (our) universe didn't exist before the Big Bang. If the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory is to be believed, our universe is merely the latest incarnation; undoubtably, the previous universe would have been entirely different in structure (its Big Bang forming different stars/planets from our own) before it collapsed in a Big Crunch. Time, being the "fourth dimension" and a component of the universe, probably functioned unconventionally (compared to how we know it) as well. I would have to read his book, as you say, to understand his meaning, but (unfortunately) I highly doubt I would understand anything written by Hawking. :lol: This is where we begin to divulge in thought. In my case, I can conceive of nothing greater than the universe itself, since it is quite literally everything. What is "infinite" and "finite" in reference to the universe, after all? By definition, the universe consists of everything, so there is nothing "more" that can exist outside it (as there is no "outside" to begin with). In the same way, what is "perfect"? (I honestly don't know what you mean by that description. Can you give me an example?) 'One last question: Assuming there is an Architect, why would he/she/it care about Mankind? We are but one species of the many on Earth, and I'm sure (considering the odds) that there are/have been other living organisms spread throughout the universe. We are less than a spec within the universe, so what makes us "special" or deserving of attention from an infinitely more powerful being? I believe that to some degree you like many other people take the bible word for word. It is a book and while the main points are all the same some things were changed so people could understand it better. You can see this today if you go buy a traditional bible and a more modernized bible or even 2 of the same you will see differences in wording. This brings up the problem of interpretation; what is meant to be literal and what is metaphorical? If theologians can't even seem to agree, then how are people to know what to believe? Countless wars have been fought over differing interpretations, so why, if the Bible was divinely inspired, wouldn't God see this in foresight and have the Bible be a bit more defined? Whatever the case, the Bible, along with all other religious writings for that matter, are hardly accredited source materials (unlike scientific texts), so you can hopefully understand why agnostics/atheists are highly skeptical when the only "evidence" of God existing rests on writings originating a couple thousand years ago. You'll have to explain this (underlined), if you will. Also, it would take a rather poor scientist to call any scientific hypothesis "absurd". The scientific method encourages open-mindedness and experimentation, so any true scientist wouldn't draw premature conclusions, anyway. Mhm, I understand. However, I was driving at the point that units of measure are not "relative" as the other poster was suggesting (to give an example, it would be similar to saying that 1,000 years ago, a day would last for 30 hours - that's relative and incorrect (at least for our planet)). You're talking about the measures of time used in the Bible being metaphorical (a work day or the time required to complete a single task), which I made sure to name as an exception. :P

14~~ pika pika

This is something I've never understood. Unless you're being metaphorical, how are periods of time relative? A day is simply the term we apply to the event of a planet rotating once on its axis (roughly), and it's the same with the others; they're all based on natural phenomena which occur over a calculable period of time. :| What is the "correct" way to interpret the Bible then? How can you say that others are incorrect in their interpretations? The 'speed of light' is the speed at which light (energy) travels through a void (uninterrupted travel, basically). It's a measurable constant. An object would not be able to travel faster than the speed of light since gravity and other such forces would act on it and prevent it from reaching that speed. Nothing travels faster than light since it's pure energy traveling without obstructions, and since that speed has been calculaed to be 299,792,458 m/s, it stands to reason that nothing else can travel at speeds exceeding that figure.

I think this is a good point. There are just some things we, as humans, are incapable of comprehending. To follow Rene Descartes' method: anything that it is possible to doubt, we should doubt, in the pursuit of knowledge. Always look at the possibilities. If you are content to accept that you are an insignificant coincidence and your life has no meaning, that is your choice. However, if I would prefer to believe that I was carefully crafted by a loving creator who simply wants me to experience the wonder and beauty of His creation and thank Him for it, and if I would prefer to believe that my life actually has a meaning instead of being an unnoticable blip on the scope of the universe... that is my choice. I agree; creation debates almost always boil down to the personal beliefs held on both sides. For my part, while I don't believe there to be any "overarching" purpose to life, I do believe that we have the ability to create specific purposes for our lives on a personal level (we create our own meaning, in other words). While we might not mean much at all to the cosmos as a whole (a grain of sand on a beach, etc, etc...), it simply doesn't matter since we live a very limited (micro) existence. ---> So, while I may not have any influence on the universe, it doesn't matter since I live on Earth (and here I can make some meaning for my brief life), if you understand what I'm saying.

Yes, in a way. The other part of the question concerns God's existence. Basically, what about God makes him/her/it eternal and the first cause if the universe (which is, in itself, "everything") is not? What makes God any different from the universe? You lost me at the bolded statement. In a closed system (the universe being the ultimate example since it consists of "everything"), entropy (randomness) and enthalpy (heat/energy exchange) will have a net-gain/loss of zero. Energy and matter (essentially the same thing, anyway) do not simply "disappear", as is stated by the Law of Conservation of Mass/Energy - they are merely converted or exchanged. In a closed system, like I said, nothing will escape so there will be no net-loss (and, of course, there will be no net-gain since energy and mass cannot be created in the first place). So, I can't say that I know what you're talking about; the "usable energy in the universe" cannot "become less and less" since the energy cannot escape from the closed system that is the universe. What can happen, though, is that the universe can expand (according to the Big Bang/Big Crunch theory, and as our universe is doing now) to a point at which the available energy becomes, for lack of a better phrase, so "spread out" that absolute zero is approached and matter in the universe comes to a state where it can hardly move for lack of kinetic energy. At that point, however, the process (which was initiated by a Big Bang) would begin to revert itself (due to accumulating gravitational forces) - resulting in a Big Crunch wherein all of existence would converge back into a single point and another Big Band would consequently occur (cyclic in nature, as previously mentioned). To the bolded statement: of course, this (the working of the universe) isn't exactly something we can study under laboratory conditions. :lol: We have, however, determined that the universe is expanded due to the affects of a Big Bang, and we can calculate that the rate of expansion cannot be sustained due to an ultimately finite amount of energy available in the universe and the increasingly powerful gravitational effects (caused by the expanding "size" of the universe) working against the expansion. There is far more information/research out there, and I'm not exactly a leading scientist qualified to explain all of this, but I believe that's the gist of it. Also, I'm not impressed by your appeal to authority - provide proof of their beliefs (not just "they say you're wrong") and I'll take it more seriously.

You're correct; we would not be alive right now to debate this if any one of those many coincidences did not occur in the formation of our universe/planet. It seems staggering, considering everything that could have gone wrong, that we exist at all, and this has led many (including yourself, if I may presume) to believe that the universe simply must have been intelligently and purposefully designed. This quote you've provided essentially summarizes your post (I apologize if I'm being presumptuous again). I admit, the sheer number of coincidences which have taken place throughout time add up to an almost incalculably impossible set of probabilities. At first glance, we should not be here, considering the odds. And yet, because we do exist, we must have been intentionally created, right? This is where, I believe, our inherent fallicies as humans blind us. From our flawed and limited perspectives, the probability of us existing is so infinitely small that we simply cannot comprehend it. Because of this, many make a leap in logic and outright assume that we couldn't exist through simple chance - that we must exist because some infinitely more powerful and knowledgeable being ordained it to be so. However, just because the probability is so small that we can't possibly accept or otherwise comprehend it, that doesn't mean that we are correct in denying the possibility. It's difficult to explain, but what I'm trying to convey is that we are ultimately insignificant. We account, on the macro-scale of the universe, for virtually nothing. Mankind has existed for a few thousand years; the universe has existed for many billions of years since the last Big Bang (and, if the cyclic series of Big Bangs/Big Crunches theory is correct, even longer than that - essentially spanning back *literally* forever). How can we hope to understand anything concerning "our" universe? What, to us, may seem an impossible probability (the existence of life), has no meaning to the universe at large. I'm sure other forms of life have sprung up many times across the universe in the past only to fade away in time; we are by no means a special case, I'm sure. If the probability of life emerging were, for example, .000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001%, I'm sure most people would say that the chance would be too small to be realistic. However, while it may appear unlikely from our perspective, who's to say that it wouldn't become a practical certainty if given enough time and opportunities? After all, we know that, at the very least, the universe has existed for billions of years and has probably cycled through several incarnations in addition to that, so is that chance really so small, in truth? I apologize for rambling, but, like I said, I'm having trouble making my point. :lol: Essentially, I suppose you could say, the entire issue is a matter of scope - something which, as humans with an average lifespan of a mere ~70 years, we simply cannot pretend to have or understand.

You say that the universe must have had a creator, and that, presumably, the creator was some form of omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent being. My question to you is this, however: If the universe "had to have been created", then what makes your presumed creator any different? Where did "God" come from? If you say that he has always existed/was the first cause, then why can't that be the case with the universe? Why, instead of considering that the universe may have always existed, do you interpolate further and assert that some supernatural being must have created it instead? I maintain that the universe is, in fact, your "God", albeit inanimate. By definition, the universe encompasses all of existence, and evidence further suggests that it has likely always existed in a continual cycle of rebirth through a series of Big Bangs and Big Crunches. What need is there of a "God-figure" when the universe itself appears to fit the description?

I'll be looking forward to this, but, in my opinion, there are several minigames more deserving of an update. There's nothing wrong with how Impetuous Impulses works now, but there are a number of flawed (and even dead) miningames which could use the attention instead. To be honest, this was quite unexpected and mildly disappointing. :huh: pika pika

Honestly, killing the Tormented Wraith isn't worthwhile anymore; with the release of RT5, the safe-spots became unusable (due to changes in the Wraith's AI). The prayer set-up (which has always been the expensive alternative to hallying or ranging from a safe-spot) is now the only method for killing the Wraith for any substantial amount of time. I can tell you everything that you'll need, but it'd be a waste unless you have prayer potions to burn. 'Let me know. Unless you're maxed in combat, bringing food won't get you anywhere, since the Wraith is abnormally powerful and accurate for an NPC of its level. Ranged won't work for more than a few kills either, as, like I said, you can't use safe-spots anymore.

I thought it would be much higher, to be honest:

Hmm, it'll be interesting to see what they've come up with.

Ahh, I have a poor sense of humour. :o You are going to tell me there is something real about an exec making 250m per year? It means about 5m per week or, with working 140hrs per week (4hrs sleep per day), about 36k per hour. There is no way someone actually earns that, it is robbing any company blind. I...don't understand? I never mentioned that anyone was making 250m/year (you did, in fact), and I can't see how that's relevant to begin with. You asked why others often believe such people to be "great men", and I answered you by stating that, since they're successful in their work, they're often emulated (seeing as most people, to some degree, wish to "succeed in life"). However, I can see where you're going with this, so I'll be presumptuous and correct you before you go too far; not all people who earn exorbitant salaries are necessarily corrupt. In the real world, there are many wealthy people, but it would be fallacious - and incredibly unrealistic - to assume that they all made their money through some unsavoury means. Undoubtably, there are those that have and continue to do so, but you shouldn't tar wealthy people (as a whole) with the same brush simply because some of them may be at fault. But again, as I said in my other post, the leaders of manipulation clans ingame aren't protected by this principle; there is no "reasonable doubt" afforded them. Manipulation clans, by definition, attempt to directly influence item prices by generating an extraordinary amount of artificial demand and thus profit from the ensuing chaos. Therefore, and again by definition, anyone running such a clan is guilty of cornering the market and running a pyramid scheme - both of which are serious crimes in the real world. *EDIT* Typos