Okay, so you describe a car that is essentially magical, because there is no known source of energy that can propel a 1-ton vehicle 1000 kilometers for a buck.
If the energy is cheap enough, it can most definitely propel a vehicle 1000 km for 1 $.
You don't need a perpetuum mobile for that, TheRedPill (nuclear energy doing this - WITHOUT installing a reactor in every car, that is - is quite consistent with physics). You just need energy cheap enough.
Then you say cheap access to LEO would be somehow revolutionary, when in fact it would just be a result of competition and technical refinement. I'll note that private space companies actually are driving down costs, but they haven't invented any revolutionary tech to do it, they just took the best of what we already had and refined it and used it a bit differently. The reason there's not some enormous boom in space travel is that there is no good reason to go there for most people.
Also, you don't mine asteroids in LEO.
Technological advancement is defined by what you can do with the technology. Reaching LEO cheaply IS a revolutionary advancement vis-a-vis what you can do with technology - compared with what we can do today.
Once you're in LEO, you're half-way to anywhere - including asteroids. The harder half, that is.
And, once one can get billions in profits from space, the reason for most people to go there will materialise - unsurprisingly.
At this point I'm content to declare that you simply have no idea what you are talking about, and you don't even understand this topic enough to offer examples of revolutionary technologies. You've been given plenty of examples of technological advancements, some of which are revolutionary--strides in materials technology, biotech, and computing are at least as important as anything we did prior to the '70s. You've just staked out this bizarre position and refuse to back away from it, even though you are completely wrong.
At this point it's obvious that you are the one having no idea even about what I argued in this thread, TheRedPill:
TRANSPORTATION technology stagnated, as I repeatedly said.
I even expressly said - in this thread, no less - that computing, etc are advancing nicely.
But you don't let that stop you from arguing against a straw-man and coming with unsupported dictums.
Maybe other people want to keep arguing in circles with you, but I won't. I'm done with this.
If the straw-men/dictums you presented here are your arguments - well, it's obvious you barely even addressed my points, let alone prove them in error.