How is it possible to compel researchers to gain basic knowledge (without violating basic scientific rules) to solve certain unsolved problems?

Dear Friends,

            Isn't common sense: If one needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ, doesn't he at least try to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For example, how could any one draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without ever even seeing or without having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a tree, animal, bird or a landmark? If one needs to paint a picture of an elephant, shouldn't he try to know what it is and how the elephants looks like?

            How could any one possibly say whether it is possible or not to invent real CBD for software, without ever even trying to know what is the nature/essence of the CBD (Component Based Design)? No software researcher in the world knows (e.g. can be able to provide even right general rough description) what is the true essence of the CBD of Physical Products, particularly the design and development of one of a kind physical products such as experimental spacecraft or pre-production fully tested final working models of next generation jet-fighters. Any one can prove me wrong by providing accurate description for real CBD.

            Don't we need to have rough or basic knowledge about nature and essential properties of physical components necessary for the CBD of physical products, if we want to paint (i.e. invent) equivalent virtual components (having the essential properties) necessary for the CBD of virtual software products in cyberspace. Today software experts (i.e. of CBSD/CBSE) can't even recognize, even if a bunch of pictures of elephants (i.e. real-software-components) fall in their lap. Even if you show real-software-components and real CBSD, the so called CBSD/CBSE experts think you are crazy and steadfastly snub the facts/reality. I have been trying to demonstrate real-software-components and CBD for software for years, but not able to make any progress. Most of the software researchers deny even obvious facts, observations and evidence.

            Software researchers have been painting the nature and reality of so called software components and CBD (Component Based Design) for software products for about 45 years, without making any effort to know what is nature and essential aspects of CBD and essential properties of components. This completely altered their perception of reality, which is preventing them to recognize obvious reality or accept simple evidence or obvious facts.

            The scientific methods have proven track-record to systematically gather, investigate and analyze evidence to discover nature and essential properties of any kind of physical beings/things. The nature & essential properties of physical components are objective facts, which can be discovered by employing scientific methods. Scientific methods have proven track-record for discovering essential properties of not only far more complex physical things (e.g. viruses, bacteria, light, particles such as electrons) but also uniquely and universally shared properties by far more diverse species/beings (e.g. animals, plants or chemicals).

            If the Sun is at the center, believing that any planet other than sun at the center and relying on such flawed axiom for expanding body of knowledge (e.g. to comprehend the reality) lead to a crisis (filled with anomalies, inconsistencies and contradictions such as inexplicable retrograde motions and epicycles). Any scientific or engineering discipline and research efforts end up in wrong path, if it starts relying on flawed axioms (e.g. such axiomatic beliefs by assuming them to be self-evident facts). The discipline ends up in crisis (e.g. paradoxical paradigm or altered perception of reality and conventional wisdom), if the research efforts continue in the wrong path for prolonged time without realizing such mistake.

            Likewise, if the essential properties of components are {R, S}, it is an error to define properties of components any thing other than the properties {R, S}. Software engineering ends up in a crisis (e.g. altered perception), if research efforts try to expand body of knowledge by relying on such flawed properties for prolonged period. It is a violation of basic rules or methods of mathematics (or logic) to rely on flawed axioms, even computer science was to be a sub-domain of mathematics alone. Using flawed axioms leads to inconsistent axiomatic system (having contradictions), which is a classic example of a crisis.

            The infamous software crisis would be a thing of past, even if few software researchers spend just few days (by employing proven scientific methods without violating processes and principles) to discover objective facts and reality such as what is the true essence of ideal CBD for the physical products and the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If the essential properties are discovered, it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components havening the essential properties.

            Many software researchers react as if I asked them to leave their beloved religion and join another religion, if I ask him to just investigate obvious evidence and observations using proven scientific methods to discover the truth and reality about ideal CBD. I am only requesting not to commit heresy by violating basic religious tenets of our beloved religion (i.e. of advancing science & technology).

            The purpose of basic research is pursuit of absolute Truth, which doesn't necessarily mean discovering only absolute Truths, but also getting closer and closer to the absolute Truths, without violating basic religious tenets (i.e. widely accepted and proven scientific processes and principles). Itis a heresy to violate basic scientific processes and principles, because violating basic scientific processes and principles diverts research effort into a wrong path and ends up in a crisis (i.e. a paradoxical paradigm and altered perception of reality), if research effort continues in the wrong path for long enough time.

            Even a high school kid should not have problem drawing a rough picture certainly resembling an elephant (without any ambiguity), if he has seen the pictures of the elephants or if he has basic knowledge about the elephants. On the other hand, even the best painter (i.e. software expert) can’t draw a picture (i.e. provide even rough description) that even remotely resembles an elephant (i.e. CBD), if has no clue what the elephants looks like (i.e. the CBD). Today software researchers have no clue what is the nature and aspects of CBD to even roughly describe the true nature or essential aspects of the CBD.

How can I convenience software researchers that it is essential to gain basic knowledge using scientific methods having proven track record for acquiring certain kinds of necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) to solve certain software problems that are not yet solved. The problems such as real CBD for software and real Artificial-Inelegance (that are unsolved for a long time) could not be solved withoutsuch BoK, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods (withoutviolating basic scientific principles and processes).

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Is it heresy to request software scientists to not violate basic well established scientific processes, principles & proven rules?

 Dear Friends,

Trying to advance any scientific or technological discipline by relying on unproven belief (even if the belief is perceived to be a self-evident truth), is a well-established violation of scientific processes, principles or rules. Software researchers have been trying to advance CBSD (Component Based Software Design) for 50 years by relying on such unproven beliefs, myths or fantasy. That is, existing flawed CBSD paradigm is rooted in unproven beliefs (that were perceived to be self-evident facts 50 years ago) and has been evolving for 50 years, without knowing or realizing the huge violation of basic scientific processes, principles or rules. That is, existing CBSD paradox (i.e. flawed of perception of altered reality) is result of over 45 years of passionate hard work and efforts of tens of thousands of researchers at any time.

Any scientific or technological research diverts into a wrong path (away from right path), as soon as it relies on a flawed belief (e.g. by erroneously assuming it to be an accurate fact). The well-established scientific principles and process forbids any real scientist from ever relying on a belief (e.g. an assumption), except for theoretical experimentation and exploration to see if the path leads a useful discovery. Hence it is absolutely essential to document any belief (that the belief is just an assumption, that is not yet proven), until the belief is proven to be a fact beyond any doubt.

If and when the belief is proven to be a demonstrable and repeatable fact, the proof must be clearly documented, so that the proof can be independently validated and could be falsified, if the fact is flawed. Anything that is not proven beyond any reasonable doubt must be treated and clearly documented as a belief. No belief can be treated as a fact until the proof is provided openly and independently validated. The proof must be in open domain for anyone to validate or to falsify. Such proven belief may be considered as a fact only as long as the proof cannot be falsified by anyone.

Most of the definitions and/or concepts at the root of existing CBSD paradigm are made out of thin air, based on wishful thinking and pure fantasy, such as, building software products by assembling COTS (Commercially Of The Shelf) components from third party component vendors, as computer hardware engineers design and build computers by using standardised reusable ICs (e.g. CPU or DRAM) and other parts such as Hard Drive, CD-player or network-card etc. It is a pure fantasy and fiction, in light of reality and design of any other physical products (e.g. cars or airplanes), which can’t be competitively differentiated by using software OS and applications: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/main-differences.html

The researchers violated the basic scientific principles and rules by relying on beliefs. If they considered that the beliefs are facts, they violated the scientific process and principles by not documenting the proof, so that others can validate the proof independently. Also allows the future generations to falsify the proof, if and when new discoveries or technological advancements make it possible to invalidate the proof. In real science, it is impossible to find any widely accepted fact having no proof. That is, it is not a real science, if it relies on unproven belief, which were considered to be a fact (without having well documented proof, which is open for independent validation). Anyone who can’t understand this very simple reasoning or basic scientific principles or processes is not a real scientist. It is not wrong to rely on beliefs, but it is violation of scientific process to not clearly documenting the beliefs as assumptions.

I am sure any good collage student of science can understand this logic. I have no idea, why the most brilliant computer scientists have problem accepting these facts and logic. Instead they feel that it is a heresy, if I mention that it is wrong violate such basic well established scientific processes, principles and proven rules.

Isn’t it the stupidest violation in history of science, many times stupider than the flawed belief that was lead to the geocentric paradigm? It is not hard to understand why mankind few 1000 years ago concluded that “the Earth is static” is a fact. But how any one can possible understand the foolish definitions at the root of CBSD such as reusable and/or standardised parts are components, and using such fake components is CBSD.

As per these foolish definitions, parts equivalent to highly standardised and reusable ingredient parts such as 53 grade cement, TMT steal, paint, plastic, metals, silicon wafers or alloys are components (and using them to build houses is CBD). On the other hand, software parts equivalent to the highly customised components (that are neither reusable nor standardised) used in designing and building one-of-a-kind physical products (e.g. prototype of a next generation jet-fighter or experimental spacecraft) are not components, and using such parts is not CBD. Isn’t it these beliefs (that are at the root of existing CBSD paradigm) many times more foolish than the 2000 years old belief “the Earth is static”?

The belief “the Earth is static” evolved for 1000 years into a complex altered perception of reality depicted by FIG-1 – doesn’t it look like a huge spaghetti code? The FIG-4 depicts the exiting perception of reality described by Kepler’s laws – So simple and elegant (compared to FIG-1): http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html.

Existing CBSD paradigm evolving for nearly 50 years by relying of flawed beliefs and it looks 10 times uglier than the FIG-1. When the flaw at the root of existing CBSD is exposed by using facts, real CBD for software will be simple and elegant as illustrated by FIG-2 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/CBD-structure.html and FIG-4 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

I am searching for real scientists. Are there any real scientists doing research in computer science or software engineering?

Dear Friends,

           The existing CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) is rooted in beliefs, which I can prove are flawed. Software researchers violated basic scientific rules and principles 50 years ago by relying on untested beliefs, this resulted in software crisis. I can’t find even a single real scientist who understands basic scientific principles and relying on untested beliefs is gross violation of the scientific principles.

In the history of science, I could find only one other example, where a scientific discipline relied on a belief (i.e. the earth is static) and evolved into a complex geocentric paradoxical paradigm, which altered perception of reality and ended up in very costly scientific crisis. Can anyone name any example other than existing CBSD paradigm, which is rooted in beliefs?

Can anyone of you name any other untested and unproven belief in any other scientific discipline, except the untested & unproven belief (i.e. the Earth is static) that eventually resulted in complex geocentric paradox (an altered perception of reality). No other research community of any real scientific discipline ever relied or accepted relying on untested and unproven belief for advancing any other scientific discipline.

It is beyond my comprehension, why none of the software researcher feels such gross violation (i.e. relying on an unproven belief) is a problem. Why it is hard to understand this simple fact/rule: Relying on flawed belief/fact diverts research efforts into a wrong path? In history of science, it is impossible to find any exception to this basic scientific rule. If brute force (i.e. research effort) is employed to advance the discipline, it ends up in crisis (since nothing useful could possibly exist in such a wrong path).

Any research effort to advance a scientific or engineering discipline diverts into a wrong path (that certainly leads to a crisis), as soon as it started relying on flawed belief/fact. There is no exception to this rule. How anyone possibly assume blindly that computer science (or software engineering) could be an exception to such a basic rule or principle? After software engineering ended up in crisis, many experts (e.g. Dr. Brook’s “No Silver Bullet”) try to rationalize that it is the nature of software engineering by using meticulous observations of retrograde motions and elaborate mapping of epicycles, which are only deceptions of fundamentally altered perception of reality.

Anyone can prove me wrong by showing even a single exception to this rule: It is a nature of any real science to end up in a wrong path, if researchers rely on beliefs, if the beliefs are flawed. It is inevitable that the scientific discipline ends up in crisis, if researches blindly employ brute force to advance the discipline. For example, if anyone foolishly believes that he can fly and jumps-off 900 feet tall cliff or building, can he avoid the bad consequences of his foolish belief (i.e. if he can’t fly)?

Relying on untested beliefs is a gross violation of scientific rules and principles. It is impossible to avoid consequences (when any scientific discipline makes such huge foolish mistake). Hence software have been suffering the consequences for at least 3 decades (at a cost of trillions of dollars). There is no other way to overcome the crisis (to prevent wasting trillions more), except exposing the flawed beliefs that diverted research efforts into a wrong path. The existing CBSD paradigm (an altered perception of reality) is the result of tens of thousands of software researchers investing their research efforts for decades without realizing that they are pushing it in a wrong path.

            Prove me wrong by showing an exception to this very basic scientific rule in the history of science: “Relying on flawed a belief” is not only a blunder but also a violation of basic scientific principle. Please don’t give me examples of beliefs, that later turned out to be right (e.g. by luck). I am only talking about the beliefs that are flawed.

In case of CBSD, I can prove that the beliefs are flawed, if any researcher is willing to see the evidence. If he can’t understand this simple logic, is he a real scientist? No one can deny simple scientific rules or principles. I don’t know how to prove obvious facts. Let me quote Galileo (last person struggled to expose such flawed belief): "By denying scientific principles, one may maintain any paradox.". I couldn’t find any other examples of such flawed beliefs (at the root of any scientific discipline) to learn from other’s experiences, which could be helpful in my struggle to expose the flawed beliefs.

            The research community used excuses such as: If the Earth is moving, why the Moon is not left behind (or how could Moon follow)? They refuse to see the evidence (e.g. Galileo’s Moons), when Galileo offered to show proof using advanced telescope invented by Galileo. The best way to expose this kind of flawed beliefs is investigating physical evidence. I can show equivalent physical evidence: many real software components & CBD applications built by assembling the real software components.

            Almost every software scientist or researcher readily admit that existing CBSD is rooted in unproven beliefs, but they continue to deny any violation of fundamental scientific principles. They pretend to be scientists. How could they be real scientists without even knowing that it is an error to violate basic scientific principles? This kind of thing never happened in the history of mankind, not even in the dark ages.

It may be understandable, if someone makes a mistake in a multiplication (e.g. 17 * 29 = 487). How could anyone continue to deny the mistake, even after the error is clearly pointed out? How could anyone insist that it is not a wrong answer, while claiming to be an expert in mathematics?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

How and/or where can I find “real scientists”, who earned deserving Ph.D and/or doing “real” research in computer science or software engineering?

I am disparately searching for real scientists (doing research in computer science everywhere, but not able to find. I greatly appreciate, if anyone can direct me where I can find real scientist (who can help me in this noble effort): I need help in creating awareness by providing irrefutable proof that computer science is not a real science because it violates proven and well established scientific processes, principles and breaks accepted scientific rules: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions

Any scientific discipline having unsubstantiated beliefs at its core can’t be real science, even if the beliefs (that are not supported by any proof) are widely accepted as self-evident truths. No scientist can be a real scientist who blindly defends such known unsubstantiated beliefs by refusing to investigate facts that can expose the flaw in such known unsubstantiated beliefs even when the facts are published openly.

Most of the software researchers and scientists admit that many concepts and definitions for software components and CBSD are rooted in beliefs (but not rooted in facts). If anyone disagrees, he/she must direct me where I can find evidence to prove that they are facts (but not beliefs). With all due respect, computer science needs real scientists for transforming it into real science. For example, existing definitions for software components and CBSD (Component Based Software Design) are rooted in 50 years old unsubstantiated beliefs and myths such as software is unique and/or different and it is impossible to achieve real CBSD that is equivalent to the CBD of physical products, without ever even making any attempt to know what is the nature and true essence of the CBD (Component Based Design) of large physical products: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design

It is impossible to practice real COP (Component Oriented Programming) essential for achieving real CBSD, if we can’t create real-software-components. Today no other existing GUI technology is capable of creating real software components, so I have to invent such GUI technologies for creating real software components: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming

It may be very hard to spot such error slipped through 50 years ago and hidden undetected for many decades. If the error is spotted (may be by chance) and pointed out, is it hard to confirm the error and all the evidence is published openly backed by tangible and repeatable experimental results? I am more than happy to provide any evidence and repeatable results anyone needs to expose these errors. We created many GUI applications by employing COP using our GUI technologies and help anyone in creating GUI application by employing COP using our GUI technologies.

I contacted countless respected research organizations and researchers many times in the past for help in my effort to expose the flawed beliefs. Unfortunately many experts feel offended for questioning the validity of such belief/myths. Most of them admitted that the beliefs have never been validated. Can a real scientist be feel offended, if I point out that a belief might be flawed? Are you a real scientist, if you feel offended for questioning an untested belief? If fact, it must be shocking to a real scientist that such an untested belief is at the root of CBSD. All the effort invested for past few decades to discover retrograde motions and epicycles end up wasted.

Exposing the flawed beliefs certainly leads to transforming computer science into real science and software engineering into real engineering. No scientific discipline can be real science as long as it has such known beliefs (that are flawed) at its core. Real science must be rooted in irrefutable facts and reality, rather than rooted in unsubstantiated beliefs/myths (postulated out of thin air in the dark ages, when the scientific discipline is in its infancy). I greatly appreciate, if anyone can direct me where and/or how I can find real scientist, who could help me in this noble effort to expose the flawed myths/beliefs for transforming computer science into real science.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Can you believe that a modern scientific discipline has been evolving by relying on untested myth and violating scientific principles/processes?

            It is a clear violation of well established scientific processes and proven principles to rely on untested and unproven assumptions (as if the assumptions are self-evident facts) for advancing our scientific or technological knowledge. If the untested or undocumented tacit assumption at the root of any scientific or technological paradigm is flawed, the whole paradigm is nothing more than science fiction and a paradox, even if the paradigm evolved for decades or even centuries and comprising countless concepts and observations created painstakingly by tens of thousands of respected researchers.

Mankind tried to advance scientific knowledge for 1000 years by relying on tacit assumption that “the Earth is static”. No one ever tried to validate this assumption (by insisting that it is a self-evident fact that requires no validation), while most philosophers don’t even aware that it was an assumption. 

Likewise, software researchers have been tiring to advance scientific and technological knowledge by relying on tacit assumption such as it is impossible to discover accurate description for physical functional components (or CBD of physical products) and even if it is possible, it is impossible to invent real software components equivalent to the physical functional components for achieving real CBD for software, where real CBD for software is equivalent to the CBD of physical products. No one ever tried to validate these tacit assumptions and most researchers don’t even aware that these are the assumption at the root of existing software engineering paradigm.

Most researchers feel offended, if I say the assumptions at the root of software engineering never tested and flawed. Unfortunately many resorted to personal attacks and insults, by assuming that I am offending their common sense. There are two ways to resolve this debate (1) prove me wrong: If they feel, I am wrong, they can show me who validated the assumption that it is impossible to discover accurate description for physical functional components (or CBD of physical products)? If it is possible to if it is possible, it is impossible to invent real software components equivalent to the physical functional components for achieving real CBD for software, where real CBD for software is equivalent to the CBD of physical products. 

If such proof exists, I don’t believe that it is a top secret and known only to select few researchers. Unfortunately many experts feel offended, when I asked for proof to show that such axioms are not assumptions but facts.

The other way for resolving this debate is (2) give me an opportunity and validate my proof with open mind. I provided comprehensive proof at http://www.real-software-components.com and articles published under my research-gate account. This rational reasoning is backed by my invention of first ever GUI-API to build real-software-components for allowing COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBD (Component Based Design):

Of course, COP requires ability to build real-software-components. Likewise, COP requires discovering and knowledge of essential characteristics (uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional components) to positively identify functionality and features that can be implemented as real-software-components. Using our GUI-API even junior Java programmers can create real-software-components and assemble them to build component hierarchies for achieving real CBD: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming

Unfortunately most researchers insist that, no such proof needs more than 45 minutes and 9 slides. Furthermore, many of them insist or feel offended, if any of the concepts of new paradigm contradicts accepted concepts or so called facts (e.g. epicycles or retrograde motions) of existing deeply entrenched paradigm. They grossly underestimate the complexity of a paradigm shift. It took more than 100 years for such paradigm shift, which is illustrated by chronology of events: http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology

Few undocumented assumptions (such as software is different and/or unique) were made in the 1960, when computer science and software engineer were in infancy (when assembly language was widely used for programming language and FORTRAN was cutting edge language). Structured and Object oriented languages were just beyond imagination. Unfortunately the assumptions were not documented, even though such assumption might be justifiable or considered self-evident facts at that time. If the assumptions were documented, they would be on the radar of the successive generation of researchers, for example, for validation when and if technology advances sufficiently.

Tens of thousands of researchers around the world created countless concepts for advancing our scientific knowledge and software engineering during 1970s by relying on such untested and tacit assumptions made in 1960s. During 1980s, countless new concepts, experience reports and observations were created by tens of thousands of researchers relying on the concepts and knowledge created during 1970s. Likewise, during 1990s, countless new concepts, experience reports and observations were created by relying on the concepts and knowledge accumulated since 1960s, and so on.

I am sure most of these accepted concept and research papers were created by sound logic and impeccable reasoning, which further rigorously vetted by community of independent researchers before being accepted. I am not questioning the validity of these research papers or their brilliant contributions, but I am questioning the validity of hidden (and now unknown) assumption at the root of these complex paradigm. The retrograde motions and epicycles are irrefutable facts, if the hidden seed assumption “the Earth is static” is True. Anyone can observe retrograde motions and epicycles by standing on so called static Earth, but now we know what went wrong.

Unfortunately many researchers feel that I am questioning their reasoning and logic, when my concepts or statements contradict the concepts presented by their research papers. It is wrong. I am only questioning the validity of forgotten or unknown assumptions at the root of existing software engineering paradigm. If the seed assumptions at the root are flawless, each of the concepts derived by relying on them by using sound logic and irrefutable reasoning must be flawless. Just because any one can observe them, the retrograde motions can’t be scientific fact. Likewise, accurately describing observable phenomena in isolation can’t make a concept a scientific fact. I am sure, each of the papers was rigorously vetted (e.g. based on long list of references provided at the end) before accepting the concepts and experiences presented in the paper.

The software researchers, who are writing papers now in 2010s may be relying on knowledge of existing paradigm evolving for past 45 years and consistent with countless concepts accumulated during past 45 years. For example, every concept and observation accepted up until 500 years ago were consistent with the perception of reality illustrated by the FIG-1 in this webpage: http://www.real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html (FIG-4 illustrates the perception of reality exists today).

It is impossible to see a new paradigm form the prism tainted by old paradigm. It is illegal circular logic to defend egocentrism by relying on retrograde motions.  So the researchers must ignore all the accumulated knowledge and focus on validating the seed assumption at the root. I can expose the errors in the seed assumptions at the root, if the researchers willing to look at the evidence with open mind (i.e. non-tainted prism).

If the researchers insist there is nothing wrong with the existing paradigm, they must answer why do we need new/different and strange definitions for software components and CBD for software, which are in clear contradiction to the reality we know about the physical functional components and CBD for physical products? https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

If every one refuses to see proof, how is it possible to expose flaws in scientific foundation & blatant violations of scientific processes/rules?

Exposing tacit assumptions having errors at the root of any deeply entrenched paradigm is one the most complex tasks for any scientist, but when successful results in a real scientific revolution and unprecedented scientific advancements. The geocentric paradigm is one of the classic examples for such paradigm that has evolved from tacit assumption “the Earth is static”.

A tacit assumption is an assumption no one consciously aware of its existence and/or not documented to educate subsequent researchers.  That is, many concepts and observations are created and documented by relying on the tacit assumption (may be without even consciously aware of the tacit assumption). These early concepts and observations would become foundation for constructing (i.e. evolving) mankind’s perception of reality, for example, by adding more and more concepts and observations by the research efforts of successive generations of researchers. That is, mankind’s perception of reality evolves and expands over time as more and more concepts and observations are added by relying on these foundational concepts and observations.

Please review Figure-1 in this web page that represents the mankind’s perception of reality up until 500 years ago: http://real-software-components.com/more_docs/epicyles_facts.html

This perception of reality (i.e. geocentric paradigm) had been evolved for nearly 2000 years and by the efforts of thousands of astronomers and philosophers. This perception of reality consists of (and/or supported by) thousands of observations and concepts. All these concepts and observations consistent with each other and paint a perception of reality that is consistent with the Figure-1.

But unfortunately there existed not even a single accepted or documented concept and/or observation in support of reality painted by the Figure-4 until 500 years ago. The figure-4 represents the perception of reality exists today. Of course, today there exists thousands of concepts and observations consistent with each other and paint a perception of reality that is consistent with the reality represented by Figure-4.

Almost each and every concept and observation of geocentric paradigm contradicts existing heliocentric paradigm. Likewise, almost each and every concept and observation of heliocentric paradigm contradicts geocentric paradigm. In other words, one can find a dozen observations or concepts of geocentric paradigm to contradict any of the concepts and observations of heliocentric paradigm.

Hence how is it possible to start presenting heliocentric paradigm? Whichever concept one can possibly pick in heliocentric paradigm can be discredited by a dozen widely accepted concepts or observations of then deeply entrenched geocentric paradigm (and conventional wisdom). In fact, saying “the Sun is at the center” offended the common sense (and conventional wisdom). In this hostile and inhospitable conditions, how is it possible to show proof?

One must be willing to spend considerable time to investigate the truth by analyzing the observations and concepts with open mind, where each of the concepts and observations fills a piece to paint the perception of reality for the heliocentric model. No research paper can present even single concept (that only paints a piece – a small part) backed by observations, especially when a dozen concepts or observations of deeply entrenched conventional wisdom contradict the piece (i.e. a small part painted by the concept backed by observations).

Furthermore each piece must be backed by physical evidence (e.g. predictable results from repeatable experiments or observations). Unfortunately most researchers refuse to see such experimental results, even in the 21^st century. Kindly recall Galilio’s famous letter to Kepler in year 1610:

"My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth."

Is there any wonder, it took over 100 years for gestalt shift from geocentric paradigm to heliocentric paradigm? Please see the chronology of the events that illustrates the complexity for such gestalt shift: http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology

How could Galileo expose the error at the root of geocentric paradigm, even if Galileo has spaceship (instead of Telescope) to take them outer space to show planetary paths in time-lapse motion, if fellow philosophers refuse to even talk to him. Apparently this kind of behaviour frustrated many other great scientists such as Max Plank how said “science advances one funeral at a time”, father of dark matter Fritz Zwicky referred many of his colleagues as “spherical bastards” and of course Einstein’s famous quote about infinite human stupidity.

I have been facing the kind problem to expose flawed tacit assumptions at the root of now deeply entrenched software engineering paradigm. It is highly frustrating, because I have been struggling to show proof for many years and almost every researcher refused to see physical proof: The real software components that are absolutely essential for real COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBSD (Component Based Design for Software).

For example, software researchers absolutely have no clue what is real CBSD, but insist that it is impossible. How can they blindly insist without even trying to know what is the essence and nature of real CBSD: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design

Researchers of Computer sciences are practising very bad science by blatantly violating scientific principles, processes and rules: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions

I contacted many research organizations (e.g. NFS.gov, NITRD.gov, NIST.gov and SEI/CMU) requested many times to give me an opportunity to demonstrate physical evidence (e.g. GUI applications built by literally assembling real-software-components, which are created by using our GUI-API). Today no other GUI-API is capable of creating such real-software-components, because no one else in the world even know what real software components are and what real CBSD is. I even told them that, they can take legal action against me, if I am wrong. As a responsible researcher, I feel, I must sue the organizations for being negligent and abdicating their basic duties and obligations, but unfortunately I can’t afford such a law suit.

I am beginning to think, I might not be able to expose the erroneous tacit assumptions of computer science that are at the root existing deeply entrenched software engineering paradigm and CBSE. If I fail, I believe, no meaningful lasting progress is possible in the field of real CBSE. I feel, exposing the error transforms computer science in to real science, which I feel is essential for many other discoveries and disciplines such as real Artificial Intelligence. For example, basic sciences are not real sciences until exposing the error at the root of geocentric paradigm and exposing the error resulted in transforming basic sciences into real sciences.

The basic scientific principles, processes and rules were created and perfected for past 400 years to guide the research for real sciences. No real science can violate the proven scientific principles, processes and established rules. But unfortunately researchers of computer science blatantly violating the principles, processes and rules by using unsubstantiated excuses such as software is unique and/or different. It is hotly debated, weather the computer science is real science or pseudo-science.

In pseudo sciences like, economic or social sciences, it is not possible to follow scientific principles and processes. I am sure, computer science is not real science because it is blatantly violating basis scientific processes and principles. However computer science can be a real science, because it is possible to follow the basis scientific processes and principle. But unfortunately researchers ignoring my best efforts to make them aware of blatant violations of scientific principles and processes. Almost every one refused to give me an opportunity to present sound reasoning backed by irrefutable physical evidence. Isn’t it gross negligence, especially if they are working for national agencies such as NITRD.gov and NSF.gov, who are appointed to position of responsibility for actively seeking disruptive scientific discoveries that can result in huge scientific and technological advancements?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

What kind of scientists deny basic scientific principles, violate proven scientific processes and well established scientific rules?

Is it acceptable, if judges blindly argue and/or advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating basic constitutional principles or breaking basic laws of the land? If any judge does it, isn’t it a clear abdication of his/her sacred duty of doing justice to innocent victims?

Why is it any different, if scientists blindly argue and advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating proven basic scientific principles or breaking widely accepted scientific rules? The very purpose and true essence of scientific research is pursuit of absolute truth, for example, by discovering new scientific facts for expanding boundaries of mankind’s knowledge for getting closer and closer to absolute truth.

Where can I find real scientists, who are not going to blindly argue and advocate that there is nothing wrong in violating proven basic scientific principles or breaking widely accepted scientific rules? I have been searching for real scientists in the fields of computer science and software engineering for over 5 years and not able to find even single real scientist.

Isn’t it clear violation of scientific process to blindly define the nature (e.g. essential properties) of physical functional components and the nature (e.g. essential aspects or true essence) of the ideal CBD of physical products, without any basis in reality or fact (but based on wishful thinking or in pursuit of a fictional fantasy)?

Isn’t clear violation of scientific rules to rely on such definitions (made out of thin air without any basis in reality or fact) for advancing scientific and/or technological knowledge by concluding and blindly defending that the definitions are self-evident truths, where such inalienable self-evident truths (i.e. definitions for software components and CBSE) requires no validation or proof?

Scientific research often relies on two kinds of enquiry (1) enquiry of fact of nature (e.g. irrefutable facts/results obtained by either observation of reality/nature or from reliably repeatable experiments) and (2) enquiry of effects or phenomena of nature, for example by using rational reasoning backed by mathematical proof such as formulates or equations (e.g. to quantify or measure the empirical results or facts).

Some irrefutable discovery of facts include, (1) the Sun is at the center of our planetary system and planets are circling around the Sun (2) there exists attraction (i.e. gravitational force) between any two bodies having measurable mass, and (3) the force of attraction increases if the masses of the bodies are increased and force of attraction decreases if the distance between the bodies is increased.

These are few examples for absolute scientific Truths proven beyond any doubt. Please notice that these absolute scientific Truths not try to quantify the orbits of planets (as Kepler did it) of force of attraction with respect to masses or distance (as Newton did it). The first step of scientific discovery includes answering broader questions, such as which planet is at the center, is there exists force of attraction between any two bodies having mass? If the answer is Yes, what kind of effect the masses and distance have on the force of attraction?

The second step is to understand and explain the phenomena of nature: Scientist need to quantify orbits of planets or measure the planetary paths by applying rational reasoning backed by mathematical proof such as formulates or equations. That is want the discoveries and inventions of Kepler and Newton did.

Now let’s come to computer science: Does the physical functional components uniquely and universally share any nature (e.g. a set of essential properties)? If answer is Yes, is it possible to discover the set of essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared by every physical functional component? If answer is Yes, is it possible to invent real software components that are equivalent to the physical functional component by having the set of essential properties?

Unfortunately software researchers blindly concluded 50 years ago and have been insisting that the answers are - No, without ever even attempting to make any investigation of facts. It is impossible to find that anyone else ever even tried to investigate such basic facts in the past 50 years.

Instead researchers 50 years ago decided to define nature (i.e. essential properties) to suite their wishful thinking or fantasy such as building large software applications by assembling reusable standardized COTS (Commercial Of the Shelf) components as hardware engineers build computers. To suite (or in pursuit of) this fantasy, they defined that reusable and/or standardized software parts are software components.

Likewise, since 1970 many kinds of software components were invented, where each kind of software components by definition is a kind of software parts having a given set of properties or conforming to a so called component model, without any basis in reality or facts but in pursuit of a fictional fantasy or wishful thinking. Any scientific discipline or engineering paradigm evolved or in pursuit of such fictional fantasy by relying on such baseless myths is nothing more than mythology. Isn’t it a classic definition for fake or pseudo science?

Whenever I try to point out numerous violations of basic scientific principles, proven processes, established rules and resultant epicycles and contradictions, each of the respected software scientists insist that software is unique or different and computer science is not real science. In my view, computer science can become real science. The problem is that the software scientists are fake or pseudo scientists, who may be brilliant but foolishly refusing to learn and practice basic scientific processes, processes and rules: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285345329_Software_researchers_practising_bad_science_by_relying_on_untestedunproven_flawed_conceptsdefinitions 

I believe, so called self styled scientists who practice such fake science are fake scientists. Forgive me, if it is offensive to call such software scientists fake scientists, if they deny basic scientific principles, violate proven scientific processes and well established scientific rules.

They refuse to engage in productive scientific debate or inspect physical evidence (i.e. real-software-components and real CBSD) but instead resort to insults and personal attacks. Is this really what happens in real basic sciences? The real sciences whet through that phase 400 years ago. In 21st century, such discovery of an error in seed axioms at the root of any basic sciences is shocking to real scientists, which certainly leads to scramble for answers why such error (i.e. untested unproven axiom) slipped without detection. Isn’t he a fake scientist, if it is not shocking or if he tries to justify the error by using baseless excuses such as the scientific discipline is unique or different (so not real science)?

It is the time to call a spade a spade. If a science is fake science, it must be called a fake science. Any scientist, who defends, encourages or teaches such fake science is a fake scientist. The corrupted system must be completely rebuilt by discovering absolute truths. In the modern 21st century there is room for intermediate steps (an another less flawed system) such as Tychonic model (that is proposed as a compromise between geocentric model and heliocentric model).

Some of the basic truths include, there exists accurate description for the nature (e.g. a set of essential properties) that are uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional components. It is possible to discover the essential properties. It is possible to invent real software components that share the essential properties and hence are equivalent to the physical functional components.

Likewise there exists accurate description for the nature (e.g. a set of essential aspects) that is uniquely and universally shared by CBD of each and every known physical product. It is possible to discover the essential aspects. It is possible for the real software components to achieve the real CBD for software that shares the essential aspects and hence is equivalent to the physical functional components.

I can provide irrefutable proof for these basic truths. This is the first step of discovery process, so it is not necessary to quantify these basic truths in the first step of discovery. Quantifying the accurate definitions is second step. I have tried to quantify the accurate descriptions, which may not be absolute truths but, I believe, close enough to the absolute truths. There is always room for improvements.

For example, Kepler’s laws to quantify the planetary orbits or Newton’s laws of to quantify universal gravity are not absolute truths but close enough for most of the practical purposes. For example, Newton’s laws of universal gravity explained the minor anomalies in the Kepler’s laws and Einstein’s theory of general relativity exposed minor anomalies in the Newton’s laws of universal gravity. Of course, researchers across the world are relentlessly working to expand the human knowledge closer and close to absolute Truth (i.e. in pursuit of the absolute Truth).

None of this would have possible without exposing the error at the root of geocentric model. Exposing the error allowed scientific progress we are enjoying now by putting the derailed scientific progress on the right tracks.  Likewise, no meaningful scientific progress is possible in computer science without putting the progress on right tracks by following proven scientific process and established scientific rules without denying basic scientific principles. We must expose fake scientists to attract real scientists or encourage real scientific research for transforming computer science form a fake science to a real science.

Real scientific research requires open honest exchange of ideas and documentation of irrefutable facts by real scientists who know basic scientific principles and who are honestly willing to follow the basic scientific principles (e.g. processes and rules). Today there exists inhospitable environment that is hostile to open honest discussion and to the very survival of real scientists. Fake scientists are ignorant of basic scientific principles and defending the existing flawed paradox by refusing to follow (or hostile to) basic scientific processes or rules.

My polite hypocrisy not worked for past 5 years, which is forcing me to consider brutal honesty.  How long one should beat around the bush (e.g. by using polite hypocrisy or humble persuasion to not hurt egos)? Eventually one would be left with no other option except calling a spade (fake scientists) a spade (i.e. fake scientist), if fake scientists burry their heads in the sand and refuse to see facts and reasoning.

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

CEO, Pioneer-soft.com