Electro-mechanical engines of Perpetual Motion and Natural Selection

Yeah, I doubt the conditions would work wihout going against the surface in *nanoecology* as I have indicated in other threading lanes criticizing nanotechology. When billions are made then even Feynman would wake from his grave stomach killing virus. Taz- I am in Poolsville right now.

You could know that I only object to overly probalistic plausibilities when other more determinate possiblites are clearly avaiable. It is not impossible to build a pedagogy and some invention attempts cardinally into what I understood you have proposed but me coming at this from another direction have found that QM as some nanotechonoligsts have it is NOT AT ALL biologically motiviated such that "good elite intentions" or a philanthropic donation to your cause in another instance could create for the less educated revulsion if a food web collapses because after a frat inition some of the beer gets mixed with the brew. This is not possible to day but I do not play the lottery on the assumption that it could happen in 50yrs. Thanks for the response. I hope this helps.

If I am to say something complete, I do not think that Wolfram was correct when relying on CS to crticize Von Neumann on cost to compute and my move into haptics will bring this out more and more with or without QM as nantechnology is better understood. I tend to try to imagine Gibbs "independent development" not Wolfram's notion of paricles in a film media and am banking the XML bindings of SCORM metatdata to perversions biologically no matter the classification.Only the future can tell( this). The rest we already know. And no, I dont know much of Shrodingers vs other apporaches to QM. Was that Bohm??

When you write "inarguable" do you mean only statistical between 1st and 2nd (law(s)) aka extinction? If this is affirmative then there is still some question in my mind. If you dont understand the question I dont know how long it will take me to rephrase it so that first you answer a yes or no on this. Best Brad.

I am not so sure you have obviated the FIGURE in the newton Bucket expt. as to absolute and relative force IN THE BIOLOGY at least in the soma of the experimentor even in outerspace. That is why I asked relative to extinction. In the "Triple Helix", Lewontin reveals awares or unawares that elite discussion of Rene Thom's catastrophe theory was geared if not garnered to biological extinction and yet I have not seen or heard the application while I considered your work possible it is still extraordinary for me as long as you do not involve mendelisM directly (by implication at most (or least for me)) which would remand more than a thought on exticntion or again I ask, "What does your reply have to do/replay with exitiction?" as I originally asked, for I can easier read the BIBLE; AND GET MORE OUT OF IT. That is not to say you are not thinking correctly I just can not judge at this "spin." Please use yOUR word "extinction" explictly in a next else I abort with no little harm done by law. [This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-01-2003]

Sorry, I did not see the 2nd post but still will "debating" the diagram yet remand issues of extinction? That is what I am asking.

My physics is realatively weak compared to biology but any constancy here short of universal statements relies on a figure that can be afforded by an ellipse or a circle with any projective geometry created therefrom so what is constant is not FIXED absolutely. I dont know if this is correct as to any difference of capacity and intensity that may have been in error in this thread (if?) else true.