Dr. Siepmann replies: Thank you for your comments. The link is interesting but
in error. Unfortunately, I can not go into depth here but I will in the book on Theoretics
that I am writing, about mathematics and numbers. Math/Numbers are merely a means of
describing the real or virtual universe. In math 2+2=4 but "2+2" is more
descriptive than "4" like "two sets of 2 items" is more descriptive
that "4 items."
As to whether numbers are innate, the answer mainly is "no." They are no more
innate than the word "two." As to whether binary numbers, or 0 and 1, or off/on
are innate, that is an interesting subject and I would tend to say yes. The number
"2" is meaningless to someone in a binary universe as there are no such things
as prime numbers. It is an interesting topic.
Sir: For an alternative explanation of T.O.E. check out this
webpage: idt.net/~dgleah19/dglhp22.html [bad link as of 8/6/01]
J.Iuliano(fermalink)
(Any thoughts on this? Dr. S)
The following are excepts of a longer email from Maurice Devaraj (mauricesdevaraj@usa.net):
Dr. Siepmann,
I should say I had a rather hurried glance through JOT the first time and I have to
make an apology to for having mistaken you as having the same intentions as the other
magazines. Consider it flattery or an outburst, this is what I'd like to say about the
other Journals of "serious" intent.
They might claim to be scientific Journals but their attitudes reek of slavish devotion
to the establishment. Consider my research for an example. I have been able to answer
quite a few questions which have dogged evolutionists through the years and many of those
who are "qualified." But... When I submitted my manuscript to these
journals, they refused to even consider the article for a peer review just because I was
not qualified to research the subject. Are they afraid that the PhDs will be made to
appear fools if my theory turns out to be correct? Are they afraid of being upstaged by
one who is not even an Undergraduate biology student? Some of the reasons for rejection
were so pathetic, one claiming "lack of familiarity" with the literature (The
literature is completely compatible). I would have been much more happier if they had
passed my idea through peer review and rejected it on grounds of lack of
credability.
They did not though.
And they wouldn't be able to as I am able to face a body of peer scientists and defend
my theory. In fact I am begging for an opportunity to do so. I might bore you here,
but the following is an abstract from an article that appeared in a local Newspaper
concerning a Cardiac Surgeon who claims to have made some research in Evolution, in
particular on the evolution of heart. He had been invited by the Royal college of Surgeons
in England. He claims to have been doing the research for two decades. But take a look at
his pathetic ignorance.
"There is no scientific proof that one life form changed because of struggle
for existence. ...We still have with us, most of the earlier species, except for the
dinosaurs, so it cannot be taken for granted that one species evolved to another, and the
previous became extinct."
99% of all life on earth has disappeared and that was essential for Homo sapien
sapiens to have appeared because without the permian and cretaceous extinctions, mammals
would never have been able to dominate the planet making way for man to appear. He was
even invited to lecture at the Royal society of Surgeons on the 25th of June. The main
theme of the lecture was that fishes had somehow anticipated that they were going to
evolve into humans and had been preparing to make way for a four chambered heart and
lungs.
He was invited to give his lecture just because of the impressive accolades he had won
as a heart surgeon such as the Hallet prize, Hunteriam Proffesorship, Aris and Gale
lecturership and Arnott Demostratorship. (Whatever they are.)
In another case, an Anthropological find, a "missing link" was immediately
published in Nature. Maybe it was in deference to his high profile and
"suitability" as well as his Academic qualification that may have led Nature
to publish the article without investigation. But quite soon after the article came
out in print, it was discovered to be a hoax.
...they still give importance more to the form than function. To the fact that they
place more importance on the degrees and doctorates than the ideas. I wish the Journal of
Theoretics all the best Dr. Siepmann. And please never ever lose sight of your
principles and attitude.
...I sense a maverickesque attitude in you and above all a real desire to pioneer and
further the boundaries of science.
Dr. Siepmann replies: I do appreciate your comments. I started the Journal of
Theoretics because I found that some of the best theories in many areas of science were
coming from outside the academic community and were falling on the deaf ears of journal
editors. Science is heading into a dark age if we can not reverse this trend. Ideas should
be based on their intelligence, logical presentation, and relevance...not on someone's
credentials.
That's why when I find a concept/theory in a submitted paper, I work with the reviewer
and author to refine and polish the article into one suitable for publication. Just as one
should not judge a book by its cover, neither should they judge an article by its author's
credentials or the polish of the presentation.