Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower


  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
  • Real Name
  • Copyright

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • Yahoo

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Melbourne, Australia
  1. Good evening AristotleJones. Thanks for your comments. Let me share with you the following … In section 10.2 of the TEW book Lewis Little notes: I don’t believe conventional theories are able to explain this. In contrast, the Theory of Elementary Waves (TEW) is able to offer an explanation. One that is not based on fields and one which involves no nonlocality, thus meeting an essential criteria of objective/realist theories - a criteria which other electromagnetism theories lack. Such an advantage however does not of course, in and of itself, prove that TEW is correct
  2. Greetings. Lewis Little has been very busy lately, so I haven’t found the opportunity to forward him your questions yet. (on top of which I was “busy” myself, being ill for a couple of weeks) For now, therefore, I offer my own humble understanding in response to some of your questions. In chapter 10 LL states: "Simply by applying the principle that behavior is necessarily behavior of something, and by remembering the principles of TEW, the correct theory of magnetism falls into place almost effortlessly." I understand from this that the postulating of “vectons” is merely an a
  3. Good afternoon. I do appreciate your thoughtfulness and consideration, however if there's anything specific you want to ask about any aspect of TEW, please let me know. It will be my pleasure to assist as best I can. Direct email is probably best: [email protected] (But please make the subject line clear so my spam-filter-on-steroids doesn't accidentally trash your email) You don't need to buy the book and you don't need to be a member of the TEWLIP forum. Your questions, comments, and criticisms are most welcome.
  4. Good evening Arisotle, Actually, I did PM you the thumbnail sketch. Twice. On March 31 and re-sent it to you via PM on April 05. Here's a copy ... Bye for now.
  5. Good evening. softwareNerd ... Your post sets up a false dichotomy between dogmatism and skepticism and campaigns for the former. Very amusing. But you've misrepresented my argument. Why have you done that? softwareNerd Secondly, it is fine to take all concrete instances of X shunning Y and classify them as a single concept of "shun". However, it is wrong to assume that all concretes under such a concept are good or bad. That would be like saying: that dog is dangerous, therefore all dogs are dangerous. Since I didn’t make either the generalization you refer to, nor th
  6. Good afternoon. Interesting analogy. Without in any way suggesting that Travis would necessarily agree with softwareNerd’s analogy, let me think this through a bit . . . I’m an Objectivist. I believe the earth is flat. But actually the earth is not flat, is it? Nevertheless, I really, really believe it is. I talk to you – a fellow Objectivist - about my theory, and convince you that it has some merit. Perhaps you are enthused about my theory, perhaps you are intrigued or curious, perhaps you are not quite convinced but you like my approach for some reason. Perhaps the
  7. Greetings. The following questions are based only on Travis Norsen’s post @ http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...st&p=208158 Could Travis clarify: In what sense does he mean and/or not mean that Physics Essays is a “fringe journal”? For instance does he mean that: It is not taken seriously by reputable, knowledgeable, trained physicists? Or ... It is a serious and reputable journal but highly specialized or esoteric? Or ... That it specializes – perhaps as a matter of policy - in highly non-mainstream, even controversial physics theories and/or research? Or ... So
  • Create New...