Strange

But then I was always going to change my mind. Therefore it wasn't a choice; it was predestined.

Even if that is true (debatable) the converse is not true: not all crackpots are great thinkers. Most of them are just crackpots.

To be honest, I wasn't really after an apology. Just an acknowledgement that you had said something unpleasant

So you are not prepared to apologise for your offensive comment?

Yes, I'm sure you are great and doing all sorts of wonderful things. But that doesn't explain why you assume that I (and presumably others) are not. Just a reminder of what you said: "but what makes me stand out from you, is that I have a genuinely beneficent for humanity and Earth cause" What that says is: "what makes me better than you is that I do all sorts of great things and you don't" Why would you say that?

Actually, it does by a really, really tiny amount due to relativistic effects (e=mc2 and all that). In pretty much all real-world scenarios, this can be ignored. Unfortunately, Relative has a habit of latching on to irrelevant details like this. Do you mean: "how much energy can it absorb before it melts, or bursts into flames, or otherwise ceases to be a brick"? If so, I have no idea. If not, can you rephrase the question. Ditto. What do you mean by "how much"? I think this is due to the increased motion of the atoms causing them to become unaligned so that their magnetic fields are not all pointing the same way. The increased kinetic energy of the atoms means they are moving faster which stretches the bonds between them. They are therefore further apart and the material is less dense. (That is probably highly simplified.) If you continue heating, then the bonds may break completely causing the metal to become liquid. In practical terms, yes.

It is what things like JET and ITER are attempting to achieve. OK being really pedantic, you could insist that this is a sustained series of fusion reactions. But I think the meaning was pretty obvious. Of course it isn't fundamental to the reaction. But the question was about the practical difficulties of each. The engineering difficulties are, largely, due to the difference between containing solids (or possibly liquids or gases) at reasonable temperatures and pressures versus containing a plasma at extremely high temperatures (and possibly pressures). Now maybe cold fusion, or some other process, could make fusion technology easier but if so, it isn't clear what that is yet.

Maybe it is. But why do you assume you are unique in this?

Yes. Sometimes. But it is usually the other way round: http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/askasci/wea00/wea00054.htm No. Not in anyway I can think of. Someone else might suggest a way it does. It isn't clear what this means. The sun emits electrically charged particles (equal numbers of positive and negative) but I would not say it produces electrical energy. But things like solar flares are generated by complicated interactions between charged particles and magnetic fields. But I really don't know what you are asking.

There you go again. Why do you assume I (and others) don't have a similar beneficent attitude? This just makes you sound arrogant and self-aggrandizing.

That is correct. (I have just realised one reason your diagrams are confusing: I would draw the arrows the other way to indicate attraction - but it doesn't really matter) You mean the bit in the middle of the magnet? I'm not sure how to answer that as it is the magnetic field outside the magnet that interacts. This is due to the whole magnet but is strongest at the ends. Kind of. I suppose it will get progressively weaker towards the middle and the reverse polarity in the middle. I don't know. It changes over time. Both the Sun's and the Earth's magnetic fields change direction constantly. Sometimes they flip completely. I have no idea how they are aligned now. But note that the forces due to these magnetic fields are approximately zero. Probably far less than the force between a magnet on my fridge door and the one you have.

I don't think it has anything to do with being science literate - you just need to explain your idea better. That is what I tried to do but you have totally ignored it. Let me try again: It sounds as if by "imagination encircles everything" you mean that we can imagine or visualise anything we have seen. Is that roughly right?

But not everybody else's. That is the impression you give anyway: everyone else is stupid, everyone else is destroying resources, etc.

It sounds as if by "imagination encircles everything" you simply mean that we can imagine anything (whether we have seen it or not). Is that roughly right? And that is the problem. Imgaining something is not comprehending it. People have imagined all sorts of false beleifs about things before. (Like imagining that because the leaves of lungwort look a bit like lungs, it must be good for respiratory disease. It isn't.) We can also imagine things that don't exist. It may not be stupid but you are not explaining it well. When asked to clarify what something means (e.g. "imagination encircles" then you insult the questioner or go off on a tangent). If you are unable to explain it well, then I suspect you do not understand it well. You just have a vague idea you are trying to put into words. You need to clarify the idea in your own mind before you can explain it to anyone else. Otherwise it just comes across as: "You know, I've got this idea and it's like, you know, and then, well, you get what I mean, I mean everything, you know".

The important point is that it is the frequency of the light that causes electrons to be emitted, not the amplitude. This led to the idea of the photon. A photon with a high enough frequency=energy can kick an electron out. If the frequency isn't high enough, then it can't kick out an electron, no matter how many photons there are (i.e. what the amplitude of the light is).

That surprises me. Unless the two positives are at different voltages, so that one is more positive than the other... Yes, two negatives (e.g. two electrons) will repel. Two positives will positives (e.g. two protons) will repel. It is not clear what this means. Electrical energy is not really a "thing" which can be emitted. It is the work done by moving electricity around a circuit, for example. The sun emits electrically charged particles (equal numbers of positive and negative). As above. I am not aware of the Earth emitting charged particles to any significant extent. Most of its mass loss comes from losing hydrogen atoms from the upper atmosphere. When talking about electrical charge, then yes, opposite charges attract. I don't think there is any such thing as "negative electrical energy".

Yes, a north pole repels a north pole, and a south pole repels a south pole. BUT. Things are a little more complicated that with electrical charges because you always get north and south together in a magnet. This means that if you suspend two bar magnets by threads around their middles, then same poles will repel (and different poles attract) until the magnets are aligned with different poles adjacent to each other. At which point the two magnets will attract each other. With no external forces, two magnets will always attract each other.

This summarises your problem. It is not "our own science"; it is your mangled and incorrect version of science. I'm not sure that gravity was ever though of as being magnetic. But even if it was, once upon a time, that is irrelevant because we have known it isn't for hundreds of years. Why bring up ancient history (which I suspect is wrong anyway). That makes no sense. If you know what current science says, why bother speculating? Science sees it that way because of the evidence. Maybe you should study history of science so you know why science sees it that way. They do point out problems in what you say. Often this explanation takes the form of trying to explain what is actually known about the subject (the "science of now"). Science can be wrong. But the very basic things you ask about are very well understood and have been thoroughly tested by experiment. The chances of anything being fundamentally wrong is nearly zero.

You seem to be very proud of your own abilities and behaviour while criticising everybody else.

You are using technology, which means (according to you) you are contributing to "the destruction of natural resource".

Only hydrogen, helium and little bit of lithium were created in the big bang. All heavier elements were created in supernovae. ("We are stardust...")

Well, I suppose you can redefine words to mean something completely different, but it doesn't really aid communication.

That is about what Atheists (is the capital A significant?) don't believe in, not what they do believe.

Without a bit more research into the science, you will never get them right.

What do typical atheists believe?