Dear Friends,
Can you guess which one is the most mysterious and enigmatic physical thing among these things such as biological cells, light, elementary particles (e.g. electrons, neutrons or protons), viruses, fungi, bacteria, atoms, chemical compounds, biological cells, blood cells or finally plain old components, in the context of engineering paradigms (e.g. mechanical, electronics, or aerospace) for designing and building large products (e.g. cars, airplanes, computers, factory machinery or spacecraft)?
The greatest tools for acquiring and using knowledge for technological progress and great inventions are (i) scientific method and (ii) mathematics, where these two tools provide complementary perspectives for gaining deeper insights. Each act like a light to illuminate mutually complementary sides, perspectives or dimensions. Since software researchers refuse to use scientific method (i.e. light of science), software community wasted 50 years and failed to solve software crisis and ended up with a useless fake CBE-paradigm.
If fake scientists still don’t realize that it is a mistake to blatantly violate scientific principles, they are going to repeat same kind of mistakes for Artificial Intelligence research and development. Many things would stay enigmatic and end up in a crisis, like software crisis. Many things that are inexplicable and puzzling or enigmatic in the perspective of mathematics can become crystal clear from the scientific perspective, since light of scientific method illuminates the dark spots left by light of mathematics.
Today, greatest enigmas for researchers of software and computer science include answers to following simple questions such as what is meant by a component in the context of all the other engineering disciplines, and what is meant by CBE (Component Based Engineering) that successfully eliminated engineering crisis form designing and building large and complex products (unlike software crisis).
Even if we know just 30% about bacteria or viruses that has been documented in the textbooks, each and every piece of knowledge can only be included in the textbooks, if and only if the piece of knowledge is supported by falsifiable proof. It impossible to find a piece of knowledge that is not supported by a falsifiable proof. There is a possibility that 20% of the knowledge in the textbooks might be falsified by finding counter evidence in the future such as new discoveries or empirical evidence.
Since mankind have enough valid knowledge about things such as bacteria, light or electrons, researchers are able to invent great things such as treatments for many kinds of infections, fibre-optic networks or semi-conductor chips respectively.
On the other hand, none of the knowledge about the components in the textbooks for computer science or software is either tested (e.g. no one challenged) or supported by any falsifiable proof. But there is a possibility that up to 20% of the knowledge might be proven valid in the future. However, I am sure that 80% of the knowledge in the textbooks is invalid and not open for challenge.
Even simple things such as what component is and what is meant by CBE stayed an enigma and mysterious for many decades, since knowledge in the textbooks about components is untested and invalid. Fake scientists at NSF ( that I prefer to call National Fake Science Foundation) feel offended, if anyone challenges their myths about so called components.
Anything would be less enigmatic or mysterious, even if we only have 30% valid knowledge than another thing that has huge knowledge, but significant portion of the knowledge is invalid. Hence, plain old components are far more mysterious and enigmatic than the invisible things such as viruses, electrons and biological cells. We made many useful inventions by even by relying on the limited valid knowledge.
Can you name any physical thing on the Earth that is more mysterious and enigmatic for scientific community than plain old components used for designed and building large products, by taking into consideration all the knowledge in the published scientific literature and textbooks for all scientific disciplines?
A thing must be the most mysterious and enigmatic, if there is a large BoK (Body of Knowledge) for the thing and if larger percentage of the BoK is invalid (e.g. untested and unproven). The main reasons that makes anything enigmatic is not just lack of sufficient valid BoK but also having large chunks of invalid knowledge.
Isn’t it fascinating? Even such simple to acquire knowledge would stay mysterious and enigmatic (and creates a paradox and crisis), if researchers refuse to use the light of scientific principles to illuminate dark spots that are in the realm of science, since such dark spots can’t be illuminated by the light of mathematics.
I invented solutions for software crisis by gaining scientific knowledge essential for understanding mysterious components essential for achieving the elusive and enigmatic CBE-paradigms, in the context of all the other engineering disciplines. The fake scientists of computer science foolishly refusing to use light of scientific method.
The NSF that supposed to uphold scientific principles and scientific method, but is breaking scientific principles, protocols and code of conduct for scientific discourse, which is essential for progress of science and technology. Any accepted theory (i.e. theory or concepts derived from the theory that are being used by practitioners of any craft or trade) must be treated as an assumption, if the theory is not supported by a falsifiable proof (that is backed by repeatable evidence and/or verifiable facts).
The practitioners of astronomy or astrology had been practiced their trade or craft until 16th century by relying on the 2300-year-old theory “the Earth is static at the centre” (and concepts or observations derived from the theory). Mankind falsely concluded that “the Earth is static at the centre” is self-evident fact, so no one bothered to support this unproven theory by finding a falsifiable proof.
Since there was no falsifiable proof for such core first-principles in the foundation, it was impossible to challenge the huge BoK (Body of the Knowledge) acquired and accumulated for 1800 years for creating the dominant paradigm until 16th century by relying on such core first-principles. The scientific community in dark ages used illegal circular logic to defend the core first-principles.
For example, they used the observable facts such as epicycles, non-uniform speeds of planets, lack of stellar parallax and retrograde motions to defend the presumption “the Earth is static at the centre”. Countless concepts, observations and other derived theories in the whole BoK that had been accumulated for 1800 years can be used to defend the belief “the Earth is at the centre”.
The scientific method, protocols and processes for discourse has been created and perfected to prevent this. The biggest problem to subvert a flawed dominant paradigm is overcoming the illegal circular logic, which rely on the huge BoK acquired and accumulated for the paradigm. This kind of thing can be prevented by having falsifiable proof for the core first-principles at the foundation of any dominant paradigm.
When there is a falsifiable proof and if the theory is flawed, it is straight forward to falsify the proof by finding one or more verifiable and/or repeatable counterevidence. This is the reason the scientific method is created, which requires that each theory must be supported by a falsifiable proof.
Unfortunately, today software researchers and experts using the huge BoK in the textbooks and published literature that has been acquired and accumulated for past 50 years by relying on untested and unproven core first-principles in the pre-paradigmatic foundation such as about so called components for software and computer science is a branch of mathematics etc.
About 80% of the accumulated knowledge we have in textbooks and other published literature about the components for software is untested, unchallenged and invalid. Having invalid knowledge makes anything enigmatic, mysterious or paradoxical. Anything would become more and more enigmatic, mysterious or paradoxical, if it acquires and accumulates more and more knowledge and if larger and larger percent of the knowledge accumulated is invalid.
Every piece of scientific knowledge for any physical thing in the textbook must be well tested, challenged, and musty be supported by falsifiable proof backed by empirical evidence that must be open for challenge. Scientists of computer science must be ashamed of them-selves, if they feel offended by counter evidence or facts to expose untested or unproven knowledge about the enigmatic components.
Isn’t it pathetic, if the NSF (National Fake Science Foundation) don’t know or can’t understand basic scientific principles, processes and basic code of conduct? I oppose passing “The Endless Frontiers Act (S. 3832)” to fund the Fake Science foundation, until fake scientists at NSF understand basic scientific principles and processes and strictly implement the code of conduct for upholding the truth.
I wish to file a court case to block the act (i.e. The Endless Frontiers Act) to prevent tens of billions of dollars flush down the drain by the fake scientists at CISE, since nearly 50% of the US$100 billion goes to the CISE of Fake Science Foundation.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Friends,
Anyone can prove me wrong by showing any other thing that is more mysterious than the plain old components by taking into consideration all the knowledge in the published scientific literature and textbooks for all scientific disciplines (e.g. making useful inventions is an objective measure for the validity of the knowledge), where other physical things include but not limited to viruses, fungi, bacteria, light, elementary particles such as electrons, neutrons or protons, atoms, chemical compounds, biological cells, blood cells.
Most of the things are invisible and/or far more complex, but they are far less mysterious and enigmatic than the components by judging from the endless debates for decades such as: http://real-software-components.com/raju/ComponentDefinitions2.pdf and http://real-software-components.com/raju/WhatIsComponent2.pdf
For example, no one in the world even know simple facts such as, what is meant by the CBE-paradigm: http://real-software-components.com/raju/TwoKindsOfParadigms.pdf or http://real-software-components.com/raju/ImportantFacts.pdf
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
Thank you for your insightful comments. I am planning to file a case against NSF next year, if they don’t treat my inventions fairly and objectively. I am moving to Washington DC next year 1st quarter (after taking Covid-19 vaccine) and stay there to meet senators and congressmen to explain logic.
I submitted a proposal for “Project Pitch” for NSF/SBIR. The project Pitch is for screening proposals based on unsubstantiated claims, for example, to screen and remove incremental or routine technologies.
My contention is that the root cause for software crisis is fake-components and fake science. My proposal was for patented inventions for real-components for achieving real-CBD paradigm: http://real-software-components.com/raju/TwoKindsOfParadigms.pdf
The proposal was rejected by saying there in no “market need” for patented inventions that can increase productivity by 5 times, and quality and agility by 10 times (e.g. since each component can redesigned and tested individually). It implies, there no company in the world interested in increasing productivity, quality and time-to-market for their products or services.
The fake scientists at the SBIT/NSF breached the implied contract of judging each proposal fairly and objectively. The purpose of the “project pitch” is to screen for finding “deep tech” and give permission to submit full proposal for phase-I funding.
In case of the “project pitch” they must give benefit of doubt for my claims and give an opportunity to substantiate my claims in full proposal, such as I can bet my life on this fact and root cause for software crisis: http://real-software-components.com/raju/ModifiedKuhnBlackHolePhase.pdf
This fake science is the root cause for fake components, which in turn root cause for software crisis. My claim is that, we can solve software crisis by inventing real components for software for achieving real-CBD paradigm: http://real-software-components.com/raju/TwoKindsOfParadigms.pdf
I made substantial progress in automatically creating and managing communication code between real components or other kind of parts, and secured allowance for 7th patent a week ago. I am planning to file another patent within 8 to 10 weeks.
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter & Friends,
Kindly allow me to remind you the role of experiments in the advancement of science and technology. The best way to gain valid knowledge about any physical thing (e.g. viruses, bacteria, or anatomy of plants or animals) is having access to the physical things (e.g. specimens) and able to conduct experiments on the specimens.
To gain knowledge about any physical thing (e.g. viruses, bacteria or real components for software), the best way and/or first thing we need to create is a testbed or platform (e.g. test environment, equipment, protocols and methods or mechanisms) for conducting experiments properly on the specimens (by finding the specimens). I am sure, every scientist and researcher know this and needs no justification.
For example, mankind could not have gained sufficient understanding about the viruses without inventing electron microscopes that are capable of seeing viruses. The research of Galileo was greatly helped by his invention of many times more powerful telescope. We can’t understand anatomy of anything without ability to dissect the thing and/or conduct experiments, for example by examining under a microscope.
What do we find in any advanced research lab for science or technology? Expensive equipment for conducting tests and experiments? Isn’t this a fact: Large chunk of funds and efforts for scientific or technological research invested for creating such testbeds (or platform) for conducting tests and/or experiments. A large part of research effort includes devising and conducting experiments for testing various new theories, facts, methods, concepts or assumptions for bold hypothesis.
Likewise, software research is no different from any other technological or theoretical research. That is, it is impossible to gain valid knowledge about real components for software without having access to real-software components and not able to conduct experiments for testing various aspects or anatomy of components.
Our patented real-components for software are specimens for experimentation or testing for real-CBE (Component-based engineering) for software. I accidentally stumbled onto real components for software and secured many patents. I have been conducting experiments on real components for software for nearly 20 years.
Pioneer-soft is the first and only company so far in the world, who invented and created GUI-technology that is capable of creating real-software-components. I am sure no one else in the world can conduct such experiments, since no other GUI-technology in the world is capable of creating real components for software.
I created such testbed and platform for conducting experiments on components for real CBE. Anyone can download our GUI-API for free for creating and testing real components for software. We have been offering our testbed and inventions freely for over a decade for non-commercial use (e.g. to conduct tests and/or experiments).
My research for real-CBE is greatly helped by our ability to create and use real components for software that are not only capable but also essential for achieving real CBE for software. For example, we created thousands of large or complex component hierarchies, where each component hierarchy is built by assembling components as sub-components to build large container components, which in turn can be used as sub-components to build larger and larger container components, and so on.
We are the only company having access to and/or using the specimens for real components and other related things (e.g. mechanisms for pluggable components) for software and have been conducting experiments. I am successful only because, I have invented have access to real components for software. I have been openly offering the GUI-API for anyone to freely download to use, test and/or conduct experiments.
Until the CISE at Fake Science Foundation (or NSF) realize what is science, the NSF doesn’t deserve any more funding from the taxpayers. No piece of theoretical knowledge can be included in any textbook for any other scientific or technological discipline, until the piece of theoretical knowledge is supported by a falsifiable proof (backed by empirical evidence and facts). Furthermore, every falsifiable proof is open for challenge and empirical falsification by finding a counterevidence.
Unfortunately, no piece of theoretical knowledge about components, methods for assembling or for CBE-paradigm in the textbooks for software are computer science is ever even tested and no one ever questioned. The knowledge in textbooks for software is treated as an axiomatic and not open for questioning.
The goal for my court case is to prevent more funding to the Fake Science foundation, who can't understand the need for creating testbed (or platform) for experiments to test and validate theories (e.g. about real components and real-CBE).
Unfortunately, fake scientists o software feel that it is heresy to challenge the untested and unproven knowledge and concepts about components. My repeated offers to show real components for software was snubbed and humiliated.
If you discover new kind of specie that no one things possible to exist (e.g. by believing existence of such thing breaks laws of nature), how can you prove its very existence if everyone refuses to give you an opportunity to show the specie.
The real-CBE for solving software crisis is that kind of specie, since the whole research community for software reached consensus that there is “no silver bullet” for software crisis: http://real-software-components.com/raju/TwoKindsOfParadigms.pdf
How could you prove things only you have seen, and not only no one else has seen but also everyone concluded that its very existence is an impossibility? I am not asking anyone to believe me, but only requesting an opportunity to show such things.
This fact needs no proof: Research efforts for science or technology often requires ability to conduct experiments for rigorous testing and validation of theories, facts, concepts, or methods. Only I have access to real components for software for nearly 2 decades and have been doing rigorous testing and validation. It is impossible to conduct such experiments without having access to real components for software.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Dr. Peter,
P.S: Can you elaborate your comment. Is it a criticism or compliment. I though it was a criticism, and wrote the following reply. But after reading few times I am not sure. Thank you, if it is a compliment.
Do you know the difference between a short “Project Pitch” and a long project proposal? Project proposals need to make claims and need to justify the claims.
But, project pitch is an opportunity to submit a short unsubstantiated claims, and the claims need to be substantiated only in the full proposal, when give opportunity to submit a long proposal.
My claims for the "Project Pitch" include, I have patents for creating and using real components for software. I gave the patent numbers. No other GUI-API in the world is capable of creating real-components for software.
Such falsifiable fact can be falsified by finding even a single counter evidence – a pluggable GUI-component see listing-1 at: http://real-software-components.com/CBD/City_GIS.html
Root cause for software crisis is fake components for software, so software crisis can be solved by invention real components for software. No product that is built by assembling optimal size components effected by spaghetti code.
No one else ever even seen a real-CBE for software: http://real-software-components.com/raju/TwoKindsOfParadigms.pdf . Have been doing research on real-CBE for 20 years.
I am ready to face criminal prosecution if I am wrong. Opinions are easy, but facts require hard work and evidence. Only fake scientists don’t know the difference between falsifiable facts and opinions.
Falsifiable facts can be falsified (if they are flawed) by finding counter evidences.
I am going to file case against the Fake Science foundation, who can't understand the need for creating testbed (or platform) for experiments to test and validate theories (e.g. about real components and real-CBE).
Best Regards,
Raju
Dear Dr. Peter & Friends,
All I am requesting is look at my testbed or platform for testing and validating my theories, concepts and methods for real components for software that are capable and also essential for achieving real CBE for software: http://real-software-components.com/raju/TwoKindsOfParadigms.pdf
They must be fake scientists, if they can’t understand the need for having access to specimens (or prototype), testing and/or conducting experiments. Most of the funding by NSF is spend on buying or leasing equipment or building prototypes (other than salary for research efforts).
Methods for conducting experiments include, creating working prototypes (or getting specimens), using lab equipment for testing or experimentation include: https://bit.ly/32CwOq6 or building expensive labs for conducting experiments: https://bit.ly/32zaehM
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Friends,
My open question to NSF: How can the CISF/NSF guarantee that the CISE don’t waste the money, if US$50 billion is allotted to it under “The Endless Frontiers Act (S. 3832)”, by having aversion to scientific principles and being fake scientists?
We followed the highest standards stipulated by scientific method for rigorous testing and validation of our theories, concepts and methods for real software components for achieving real CBE-paradigm for software.
We created tens of thousands real components for software (as industrial quality specimens) and assembled them for creating hundreds of production quality large component hierarchies during my research spanning 2 decades.
My open question to NSF/CISE is: How could you judge my theories, concepts and methods for real-CBE for software without ever even seeing and clueless about facts and reality for building blocks: Real-components for software?
My “project pitch” for NSF/SBIR was rejected by Dr. Diane Hickey (see her Bio at: https://seedfund.nsf.gov/contact/bios/) who seems to have no experience in software engineering or theoretical computer science. This was confirmed by Dr. Carol Bessel, who also has doctorate in Chemistry and have no experience in software engineering or theoretical computer science.
My repeated emails are ignored. Isn’t it racism? If feels like, the Fake Science Foundation hires monkeys to throw darts for selecting “deep tech” projects. I shared this thread with staff of CISE/NSF and hoping to hear a reply.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Friends,
I hope the scientists at CISE/NSF can understand simple logic: If anyone needs to test or conduct experiments on an animal species, is it possible to conduct tests or experiments without having access to specimens for the animals species (e.g. if he doesn’t know what it is or how it looks like)?
Likewise, it is impossible to conduct any kinds of tests or experiments on real components for software without having access to specimens for real components for software (e.g. if he has no clue about what real component is)?
If anyone wants to conduct tests or experiments on real components for software, he has only two options:
1. Either inventing real components for software (this needs investing millions and takes few years) for achieving real CBE for software, or
2. Downloading our patented GUI-API from our website for creating real components for software, since our patented inventions for real components for software are capable of achieving perfect real-CBE paradigm for software.
A sample test for real components: Any kind of components that can achieve perfect CBE-paradigm for software must be real components for software, since fake components can’t achieve such perfect real-CBE paradigm: http://real-software-components.com/raju/TwoKindsOfParadigms.pdf
I can provide many other such tests and sound reasoning that are backed by evidence, and facts, to conclusively prove that the components we invented (and have patients) are real components for software.
I am not asking anyone to believe me. I am only asking to review my “project pitch” fairly and objectively, as required by implied contract for proposals submitted in response to solicitations for proposals by the NSF.
Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri
Dear Raju!
I will write you a very serious answer...
The most mysterious component today is the methane CH4. But not the every methane, not that one we are burning or it is being emitted from the rubbish dumps or ruminant digestion...
I would even not say mysterious, but the most ignoring and in the same time the most fateful thing, which is happening with the planet.
It is the methane, which is escaping from the Arctic shallow seas. Together with the ice the frozen soil, permafrost is melting, too on the land and in the seafloor… Disapearing of this firm cover is releasing the huge gas quantities beneath… The emitted methane quantities really reach (expanding Russian measurements of certain regions) already more than 20 Gtons annually. This is energy, which corresponds two folds of energy, used by the human on the Earth… And all this goes into the atmosphere…
But it is not problem the energy, which we are losing. You know the methane is one of the most powerful greenhouse gases. You will get in various Internet sources its GWP (Global Warming Potential) ratio of 25 up to 35 comparing with CO2. But this is not true, because this calculation includes decomposition of a constant methane quantity in 100 years and its common influence in this time… But really the entire methane quantity in atmosphere is only rising, including all its decomposition. So we cannot consider only its 20 times higher greenhouse power, but we must use its current or a short-term GWP parameter, which goes up to 200.
We produce today approx. 45 Gton of additional CO2. You must know that at the entire 3000 Gtons of CO2 in atmosphere, 800 Gtons of it is annually included into its natural planet exchange with the atmosphere, so our annual contribution is about 5 % of this exchange.
Quantitatively the Arctic methane means half of the released human CO2. If we multiply this Arctic methane 22 Gtons with its GWP 150, we get 3300 Gton of apparent CO2. So the annually released Arctic methane has the same greenhouse power as the entire quantity of CO2 in atmosphere. The consequences must be catastrophic. The sharp climate changes, increased number and power of hurricanes, forest fires, expanding deserts, etc. are consequences and they have already caught into the vicious cycle with increasing temperature and melting polar ice and northern permafrost…
These two things, quantity of Arctic methane and its power, are today the most ignorable by politic and weather institutions, as IPCC. And the most critical is that also most of the western science is ignoring these facts. The people who have the power and mind and tools are looking away. They could joined force the politic to take the right steps, but they are playing and accentuating only the human produced CO2… They are actually playing with the human and planet destiny !!!
These are short facts about this "mystery", produced and maintained by the certain interested people circles themselves. When you will search the further information, use the Russian sources, Tomsk University and names Igor Semiletov and Natalia Shakhova. They will tell you much…
I am only the engineer, but my research of theses things led to a written book The Arctic Methane, of which preliminary files you can find at link:
https://drive.google.com/open?id=1tEXpc1OEN5e8MCwXFhKK3Kt3CDPljIc8
There is listed also much of the used literature…
There are solutions, as using this methane instead fossil fuels and hermetically covering the seafloor, where huge methane quantities are bubbling out… But the entire humanity would have to be informed and start to cooperate (with Russians).
Best regards, Milan Malej
Science theories and proposals has been challenging aspects, there are pros and cons in science, despite all challenges, contradictions, failures the notions still advanced and the positive of discoveries been made in to out way of living.
Thank you for coming forward with your perspective. Thanks to peter for popping in, and I thank Milan for preparing his answer.
Milan has been working hard in this Methane proposal and I sincerely and whole heartedly co- proposing it. Meanwhile, Here is something for a read, if it interests you.
https://www.amazon.co.uk/atomic-isotopes-Nuclear-Electromagnetic-Particles/dp/B08NF2QNK4/ref=mp_s_a_1_16?dchild=1&keywords=fatema+Miah&qid=1612602966&sr=8-16
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Computer Science