Q: i guess you mean why western Europe was first to enter the industrial age.

• i guess Europe was nearer to America than Asia, so the Atlantic trade could develop, it was easier to cross the Atlantic rather than the Pacific ocean; the Atlantic trade helped to accumulate capital for the industrial revolution.
• Western Europe in the middle ages was not confronted by nomadic invasions, so the Feudal states did not have to raise a standing army to fight such a menace, Feudal states were weak (no strong/centralized states until the late 17th and 18th centuries, Russia had a strong state earlier - but it is not part of Western Europe) the weakness of the Feudal state created enough room for the formation of civil society and an independent judiciary
• Karl Marx would say that the East had a prevalent 'Asiatic mode of production' , only the West developed guarantees of private ownership, in the East power and property were fused, so that rulers were bound to gain wealth by expropriating the public and by corruption; this tendency to loot the public/corruption created fewer incentives for the growth of an efficient industry. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mode_of_production#Asiatic_mode_of_production (An interesting side note is that this work by Marx was suppressed during Stalin and later, the Soviet rulers did not want to hear about it)

I found this book very interesting: "Why the West Rules--for Now: The Patterns of History, and What They Reveal About the Future" by Ian Morris http://www.amazon.com/Why-West-Rules-Now-Patterns/dp/0312611692

Q: why there was no wheel in pre columbian America?

Toys with wheels were found, but they did not have horses or any other domestic animals that could be used to pull a cart, so the concept remained a toy.

Several reasons which are all of course speculation backed up by educated research.

Lack of a Hegemonic Empire - Unlike the Ottomans in the Middle East or the Ming and Qing in the Far East - Europe was not dominated by one state. As a result, intra-state competition fostered an environment where states could centralize, fund technology that could bring about military success, or adapt to changing conditions. In the Middle East and East Asia reform and adaptation was very difficult to make against entrenched military elites (Jannisaries and Bannermen), cliqish bureaucrats, or local landowners who had an entrenched interest in the preservation of the status quo.

Lack of a security impetus - The Ottomans and the Qing both reached a fantastic size with tremendous military successes and for a time became the hegemon of the region they occupied - in each empires respective heyday, none of the smaller polities could challenge either the Ottomans or the Qing for control of the region. As a result, the elites and bureaucratic structure lost its flexibility in being able to reform and adapt technologically to face outside threats. By the time technology had advanced to make threats on the margins (Britain, France, Russians) much scarier - the bureaucracies and militaries of these states lagged behind.

Poor Economic Resources - Neither the Qing nor the Ottomans had as efficient economic resources at their disposal as compared with Western Europe - much land was underutilized or held by tax farmers, which inhibited modernization and development. Corruption placed a huge drain on the finances of both the Ottomans and the Qing, and limited to no small degree the amount of funds able to be used for modernization.

Sources - Charles Tilly -Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990–1992, John Darwin After Tamerlane: The Global History of Empire since 1405, A bunch of other books used in my undergrad thesis. . . that I have to find the names of. . .