Relick

That's not what he meant. He said that it will be millions of years before we run out of power in order to start using He3. There is a lot of He3 outside of the Earth, just getting to it and mining it is so expensive the potential energy return may not be worth it.

These three arguments have no basis whatsoever and you should not take heed. Nuclear waste is not created through fusion, we DO know how to use deuterium and tritium and nuclear bombs cannot possibly use fusion in its current state. Finally, it will combat global warming because (if it works), fusion makes no pollution allowing the trees to bring down CO2 levels. The other three arguments you posted are valid though. EDIT: WTF ninja'd.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/one-giant-leap-for-mankind-13bn-iter-project-makes-breakthrough-in-the-quest-for-nuclear-fusion-a-solution-to-climate-change-and-an-age-of-clean-cheap-energy-8590480.html Just read this article, so it looks like we might finally be pushing forward with getting fusion energy. Although, it does bring up a question to the wannabe physicist. How can we possibly maintain 150,000,000 degrees Celsius with magnets and concrete? I could wikipedia it but then again this sounds look a good discussion for what the future holds for energy. What do you guys think will be used in the next 100, maybe more years?

Now I'm no Professor, but I'm pretty sure that everything expanded from the start of the universe - that means there is no centre, nor is there anything at the centre. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/centre.html read the first paragraph of that for clarification. Quite frankly, nothing is stationary and getting something to be stationary would require a tremendous amount of work (and energy). Also intermolecular forces, and especially dark matter will keep things together when it gets further out (leaving aside radioactive decay). The universe will (I believe) split into 'bubble' universes where it has expanded so much that places with nothing appear. Not even space. So yes, you might not be able to see any stars however we can barely see stars further than our own galaxy right now so as long as the galaxy stays in its own bubble you'd still see stars and life would theoretically be possible.

No, and I don't have time to write why religion is silly, and why deism is silly. If someone wants to know I'll explain.

You clearly have many ideas, and I commend that. Don't stop dreaming them up. However, DO stop sharing every single one of them without research. If you aren't sure, google and wikipedia usually have the answer. Sadly chances are it either isn't feasible, or has been done before or can be done better already. When you have a decent idea which is possible and has not been done before that may require us to go to the moon as opposed to LEO stations or Earth, then we'll gladly hear it!