Calvet's Response to Schreiber’s Comments

        In this issue (Vol.4-5, Comments Section), there is a destructive comment of Mr. Bert Schreiber on my development of the new Quantum Gravity Equation based on Planck units. He writes: "Calvet: Gravitational Inertia - How did this slip by you in the first place? G is used to define (is intrinsic) the Planck values, so combining them will give G. This type of error happens all too often in papers." I wanted to state that this is NOT completely true! In order to determine, which physical entity is affecting G, it is obviously necessary to test several alternatives. The alternative "Planck units" gave the result that in the equation appears a density at Planck level – per definition, the density of quantum vacuum.
        Mr. Schreiber should know that Planck values alone do not tell anything if they are not further combined into real physical values. This is what I did, and therefore, my work cannot be considered simply the contrary of Planck's development, since Planck did not take into consideration quantum vacuum as the probable (partial) source of gravity.
I applied the same method with the constants G (gravitational) and C (electric), rendering physical facts about quantum vacuum - something that is not possible if we stop our analysis just at Planck units, simply because Mr. Schreiber believes that there is some kind of barrier, we should not surpass. In addition, the explanations given in my 3 latest articles on G and C are
obvious and that is why the Journal of Theoretics published them. 
        As long as Mr. Schreiber does not demonstrate the contrary (what is probably not possible because the figures talk for themselves), this new Quantum Gravity Equation must be considered being "true". In addition, anyone who reads these 3 articles will soon appreciate the "beauty" they contain, a necessary need for all physical developments that ought to be true according to leading physicists of our still, in a great extent, unknown world.

Sincerely,
Carlos Calvet hyperspace@telefonica.net; planckworld2@terra.es 

Defining "Science"

       I have read your definition of science at http://www.journaloftheoretics.com/Editorials/Vol-1/e1-3.htm .  I am pleased there are other people concerned with broad definitions that truly cover all the bases. I have attempted to write a definition also:

Science: A many branched discipline that exclusively practices the asking,
answering, and recording of verifiable questions about nature; it uses
experiment, observation, mathematical modeling, laws, principals, theories ,
and open criticism to accomplish this goal.

(I go on to define these terms)

        I fully agree that there are too many people that don't even realize that it is a noun, and seem to think of it a specific process, almost if not, a verb. Science is a discipline just as Karate is a discipline. Scientists practice Science. In a sense PhD's are the equivalent of a black belt in Karate. Too many professors seem to be promoting the concept that Science is only the scientific method.

On that same page you wrote:

Science: the field of study which tries to describe and understand the
nature of the universe in whole or part. The field of study or discipline
that we call Science is spelled with a capital "S" as it is a proper noun in
this use while science with a small "s" is the application of this
discipline.

I'm a little confused about the capital S and small s versions (although it sounds intriguing). 
I would like to confer further with you on this for my own web page.

Sincerely,
Lance May laceimay@hotmail.com 

Dr. Siepmann replies:
        Thank the email. It is always a pleasure to converse with someone who actually thinks rather than just repeating what they were taught (and had little if any depth to it).
        In my definition of "Science" (capital "S") is the ongoing attempt to unravel (understand) the universe in its totality. The process by which we do this (the practical application) is "science" (little "s"). We practice science via a process of theory and experimentation/observation. A hypothesis is nothing but a conjecture which if satisfied will offer validity to the corresponding theory from which it came.
        Scientific Method, as you correctly point out, makes no sense for much of science. Just think about how much of our scientific knowledge is based upon pure observation (astronomy, much of theoretical physics, etc.). It is for that reason that it makes no sense to define science by the application of the scientific method.
        In my experience, I have come to think of PhDs as being the black belts of hypothesis/experimentation, but not of theory development. Just take a look at any science journal and it is full of nothing but articles with a simple hypothesis and a very narrow experiment that was done to validate or invalidate the simple hypothesis.
        Theory development is much more complicated and demanding than just putting a bunch of hypotheses together. It takes a creative mind (one that can see the bigger picture in contrast to the specific mind of an experimentalist) to put together a theory from the available knowledgebase. It also demands that one use logic appropriately, so that the concluding theory comes from a valid argument.
        Using your definition, I would tweak it a little (note that this is a definition of "science" since it deals with the practice/method) to: "A multi-branched discipline that exclusively practices the asking (Science) and answering (validated theory which leads to the uncovering of the laws of nature) of verifiable questions about nature, via experimentation, observation, modeling, and other processes which can continue to validate (or invalidate) what has come before." [Being subject to invalidation, seems to me to be more specific and procedurally correct than the just word criticism.]
        I would also differ about scientists practicing Science; scientists practice science. In other words, they procedurally follow the cookbook to answer hypotheses; they do not put things in perspective (theory that would evolve into a law) and therefore are contributing minimally to our overall understanding of the universe (Science).
        I hope that this has helped in your understanding of my perspective and has advanced the discussion of Science and science.

Sincerely,
Dr. Siepmann mail@journaloftheoretics.com 

A Thank You to the Journal

Dear colleagues, 
        As you can imagine, we are happy that our article is published and disposed to your readers. It really looks great. As you can remember few weeks ago I wrote to you : "With high hopes." Now we can say that our expectations about publishing that material are fulfilled. The only thing that we can do is to thank you again, and hope that we will produce more material of such quality. This is really simulative. Of course, complete information will come as additional opinion from readers. We also hope that we incorporate a little stone at Journal in the way you express at home page of Journal. 
Most Sincerely, 
D.Bonacin dobromir.bonacin@st.hinet.hr & Z.Carev 

Dr. Siepmann responds:
        Thank you for your note. When we first started a couple years ago, we had high hopes and a vision. We now seem to be realizing those dreams with a very large readership of which a significant percentage is from academia (we know that at least 25% of our subscribers are from academia). Again thank you for you contributions and fine work.

& More on Capital Punishment

[I knew that I would get a response on the capital punishment argument which I based on logic and factual evidence. I was greatly disappointed by the number of people twisted the facts and made no logical rebut to my comments on capital punishment. Everyone who disagreed with my logical argument had to lie about what I said albeit one. I hoped for better. In addition to reading below, please read this issue’s editorial about this debate and others at Bringing Science into Political Issue Debate. Below is but a sampling. Dr. Siepmann]

From Charles Roberston crobertson@superlaw.com  
        As a sitting judge, with family in the scientific community, I am keenly aware of the capital punishment debate, and I am legally bound to have no opinion on the topic, but I raised an eyebrow with your statement that there have been no innocent people put to death. At last count I recall something on the order of 140 major sentences overturned on DNA evidence…a relatively new technology. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that people in America have in fact been imprisoned for life or even put to death for crimes which they did not commit…a fact that causes many a judge, prosecutor, and defense attorney sleepless nights.

Dr. Siepmann responds:
        As a judge you should also be aware of the facts, such as saying that I said something that I did not say. As I stated no innocent person has ever been put to death. Yes there have been cases where people on death row have been found out to later be innocent and released via DNA and other evidence, but again as I said, "No one has been put to death in the US that was innocent," which is quite true. The system works. I hope that you learn the facts and don't twist what people say from the bench.

Charles Robertson responds:
        I can only add that my wife fully agreed with the balance of the letter. There is no twist…your premise is simply epistemologically unsound. If you elect to believe otherwise, and challenge what I believe is a statistical certainty that people have in fact been put to death for crimes they did not commit, then we simply must agree to disagree. Collectively, your remaining premises, and the ultimate conclusion, were valid.

*    *    *    *    *

[At least glen angus graham did not lie about what I said. Glen Graham’s (G) words are in blue and Dr. Siepmann's (S) are in black.]

G: Studies have proved fruitless to date because they don't actually know how the mind works. How can we possibly write off the study of the criminal mind simply because so far we have failed to make progress?
        Nobody in their right mind commits a violent act. Everybody on death row IS suffering from a mental illness, they simply haven't been able to identify anything except the obvious. A perfect state of sanity is not possible. We all fluctuate in varying degrees as to how much mental illness we all suffer from.
        My definition of mental illness is simply an individual’s inability to implement self-control. We all suffer from this in small degrees, but we are able to pull ourselves out of this mindset. It doesn't matter what your symptoms are, the key factor or common denominator if you like is still the individuals inability to implement self-control.
        I'll let you ponder the sociological and legal ramifications of this interpretation of mental illness within the human species.

S: Good question about sociopaths being mentally ill, but technically sociopaths are classified as a personality disorder and not a mental illness. In fact, our last president (Clinton) is a classic sociopath. Unfortunately, a lot of sociopaths go into politics.
       Having been a clinical physician for many years, I can tell you that most murderers are not insane, they are sociopaths who have no concept of right or wrong.

G: I wondered how you were able to tolerate my inconsistencies!! 
Isn't a mind state of sociopathic tendencies a mental illness?
They clearly are not in their right mind. Why are they sociopaths? 
A lack of self-control is still a very important relativistic factor.

S: Your self-control observation is a good one and valid, but it is still not an excuse. I spent a few years working part-time on a locked psychiatric unit where such murderers were evaluated for clinical competence. Here in the United States, being insane actually gets you out of capital punishment. By your argument every criminal who commits a violent act is insane and therefore not culpable.

G: Exactly – [deleted] aint it!?

S: Scientifically and medically, such is not the case and for those who really are insane, they are often remanded to a clinical facility for treatment in the United States and usually face no jail time and definitely not the death sentence.

G: I agree this reality exists, I simply will be challenging the whole psychiatric fraternity in the coming years.

S: Sorry to still disagree but the facts are still on my side. Also thank you for not distorting what I said. I have numerous emails which have lied about what I said in order to make their argument which were for the most part purely liberal pabulum without factual substantiation.

G: I'm after the truth, if I can't prove your perspective wrong over time I will accept it. ... I appreciate the need for death within the whole concept of life. No life exists without taking life from another life form. Sometimes you have to make the tough decisions. I just don't think we are at that point yet. Left field research is required. In time I will explain what I mean by this.