X-Message-Number: 20988 Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2003 06:57:31 -0500 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #20972 - #20980 For Michael Price: If I understand the background of the debate which you and Bob Ettinger are now engaged in, Bob was not arguing with you about the current theories of quantum mechanics at all. He was looking at those theories more generally. Today's quantum mechanics says that electrons have no more than a small finite list of characteristics. But then quantum mechanics and relativity continue to conflict, and who is to say what physical theory will succeed them and what it will say about electrons? Telling Bob Ettinger about the special features of today's quantum mechanics just doesn't answer his concerns. For Henri Kluytmans: I believe I pointed out that chemists were already studying ways to make hydrogen more compressed and more manageable in a previous message. Think borohydrides. As for nanotechnology, living systems can only be used so far. They do not extend to the systems you (or NANOSYSTEMS) envision. In particular, they operate by chemistry, though a finely "designed" chemistry at that. There is no system to put atoms just where (someone:who?) wants them to go because there is nobody making such choices. It's not that they're random at all, but that randomness turns out to be GUIDED. Not all statistics follows a bell curve. Perhaps your NMT will someday really come, perhaps living things when examined carefully will tell us why it will never come. Among other points, if you have LOTS of molecules ways to use randomness to change them to suit may turn out much more efficient than devising special systems which move every one where you want it. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=20988