Re: [Sci.nanotech] Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 18:39:16 -0000
"Tom" <cyclintom@xxxxxxxxx> writes:
> Perry - don't redefine nanotechnology to be chemistry. This is
> precisely why I was complaining.
I'm not defining it to be chemistry.
> You and I both know that Drexlar was speaking of nano-sized mechanical
> contraptions that seem most unlikely at this point in time.
I see no reason to think any of his stuff is particularly unlikely at
this time. I do suspect that certain "proof of concept" designs he
sketched out were never intended to actually be built and will never
be built because by the time we can build them we'll have better
ideas.
> As far as "anything in physics" there also isn't anything in physics
> that would deny the possibility of travel to the stars. All it takes is
> enough time and budget. Care to use your retirement funds for that
> project?
I really don't understand your logic here I'm afraid.
Drexler's ideas seem both compatible with our understanding of physics
and quite doable. There is nothing really that exotic about them. If
you have objections, it would be reasonable of you to be explicit
about them instead of being vague.
And, as for travel to the stars, given implementation of Drexler's
ideas, I see no reason why we wouldn't send probes out there. It would
take very long periods of time to get data back of course, but mankind
has been willing to do such things before.
Perry
.
- References:
- Nanotechnology Redefined
- From: Tom
- Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- From: Perry E. Metzger
- Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- From: Tom
- Nanotechnology Redefined
- Prev by Date: Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- Next by Date: Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- Previous by thread: Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- Next by thread: Re: Nanotechnology Redefined
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|