I suggest you to read two books by Mario Bunge, you could get your own conclusion:

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1746-8361.1965.tb00470.x/abstract

https://books.google.com.mx/books/about/Philosophy_of_Science.html?id=oX84XOf-T68C&redir_esc=y

The thing is that 'practical knowledge' doesn't have to be 'true' to be 'valid'. It almost always involves guesstimates and intuitions, but is consistent enough to yield results. For instance, time-keeping or navigation could rely on 'practical knowledge' of planetary motion, producing replicable results within a tolerable margin of error for most intents and purposes. In this sense, deeming 'practical knowledge' valid is to pass a judgment on its 'practicality' not its 'versimilitude'.

Thank you Mr. Gozalez for the references.

Dear Mr. Chardalias,

I agree, practical experience or knowledge guides us. But my view is intellectual knowledge helps us make advancements such as useful inventions, and improvements or uncover hidden errors.

The purpose of scientific research is to gain intellectual knowledge of, why it happens the way it does or why things behave the way they do. Both are essential. Each compliment the other. Gaining both help us have comprehensive knowledge.

Just to provide the context for this question: As a researcher, I feel, each of us must try to get both kinds of knowledge. The purpose of research is expanding the boundary of our knowledge by discovering new facts.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Braun,

I agree. If we admit or not, often our knowledge is imperfect and incomplete. So it is given that research is pursuit of absolute Truth, which often imply getting closer and closer to the Truth,

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Friends,

Let me allow illustrating the context of this question using an example. Example for practical Knowledge: If I drop a stone from top of a building, I know that it falls on the ground. Example for intellectual Knowledge: If I drop a stone from top of a building, I know why it falls on the ground, because I learned Newton’s discoveries and mechanics when I was in school and college. Mankind didn’t have the intellectual Knowledge until 17th century, why the stone falls on the ground.

Likewise, mankind has practical knowledge that the design, engineering and development of no other kind of products (except software products) is affected by spaghetti code/design. Neither complexity nor uniqueness of one of a kind product (e.g. building a working prototype of a next generation Jet-fighter, nuclear powered locomotive engine or spacecraft) can prevent the designers or engineers to build the product by assembling components.

Mankind didn’t have intellectual Knowledge, why designing, engineering and building of any other product is not affected by spaghetti code/design. Gaining intellectual Knowledge help invent solutions, necessary tools, processes and mechanisms for eliminating spaghetti design/code (and the infamous software crisis) from designing, engineering and development of software products as well.

As you can see, gaining intellectual knowledge about “why stone falls on the ground” helped us advance our knowledge. Likewise, I am sure that the infamous software crisis can be solved by gaining intellectual Knowledge about “why design of no other product is affected by spaghetti code/design” .

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Braun,

Thank you for an interesting example. I don’t know mush in that area. But I am wondering, even today researchers not yet figured out scientific explanation? It is hard to believe that researchers in hard sciences refuse to investigate counter evidences. I don’t think, the following kind of situation exist in chemistry:

In case of software, the problem is not that it is hard to discover the Truth. But the problem is refusal of the researchers to investigate evidence and facts. It takes no time to discover the Truth about the components for CBD/CBE, if researchers are willing to investigate evidence and facts. But unfortunately researchers feel it is arrogant or disrespectful to question the 50 to 60 years old untested and unproven beliefs about the components and CBD/CBE.

This was true in case of geocentric paradigm in 16th century. Researchers considered that it was heresy to question the 2300 years old unproven belief (the Earth is static at the center), who played active role in prosecuting Galileo and Bruno.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Braun,

I agree that it wrong to feel, that the older generations were fools and ignorant and that our generation is smart and knows all the answers. We are here and our knowledge progresses substantially because they solved many problems.

Although they had set backs and false positives. I am sure, our generation also would have our share of setbacks and false positives. For example, even in 21st century, we are making the same kind of mistakes summarised by Dr. Kuhn.

Please read this outstanding synopsis for the famous book “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas S. Kuhn, who is one of the greatest philosophers of science of 20th century: https://www.uky.edu/~eushe2/Pajares/kuhnsyn.html.

• The first paragraph of this synopsis of the influential book says: A scientific community cannot practice its trade without some set of received beliefs. These beliefs form the foundation of the "educational initiation that prepares and licenses the student for professional practice". The nature of the "rigorous and rigid" preparation helps ensure that the received beliefs are firmly fixed in the student's mind. [Mistake-1] Scientists take great pains to defend the assumption that scientists know what the world is like... [Mistake-2] To this end, "normal science" will often suppress novelties which undermine its foundations. [Mistake-3] Research is therefore not about discovering the unknown, but rather "a strenuous and devoted attempt to force nature into the conceptual boxes supplied by professional education".

For example, each and every book on software and research paper in the world teaching that “parts that are designed and/or conducive to be reusable are components” and “CBD/CBE (Component Based Design, Development or Engineering) of a product is using such parts (that can be reusable) for building the product”. Now every researcher in the world strenuously and devotedly working hard to force the nature into the conceptual boxes (i.e. boundaries of knowledge for dominant paradigm) supplied by their flawed education and many years (or decades) of work and experience confined to the conceptual boxes (i.e. dominant paradigm).

This is preventing us from inventing very useful special kind of parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled, where such special kind of parts (that are designed and conducive) are widely known (or referred to) as components in the context of countless products we use every day such as cars, computers, cell-phones, TVs, airplanes, machines or machinery for factories. In the context of such every day products, no part can be a component, if the part is not conducive to be assembled. Terminology may not be important but not having parts that can be assembled is root cause for infamous spaghetti code.

Best Regards,

Raju

I disagree with the dichotomy of practical and intellectual knowledge. Even the simple idea that a stone will always fall on the ground is already an idea. And everything else is increasing knowledge. A never-ending process of increasing knowledge. This means, that every kind of knowlege is no real knowledge, but could be questioned one day. And of course, before knowledge increases, you do not know better. Only in the hindsight, you know better.

There is maybe only one threshold of knowledge which really makes a difference: The realization that every piece of knowledge can be questioned one day makes a big difference in our knowledge.

So your question is wrong. Exactly when becoming intellectual, you learn, that no knowledge is "valid" and safe for ever. Only then, when you have not yet realized this, only then you are sure about your knowledge (which is an error, but you cannot see this error in this moment).

Dear Mr. Franke,

How do you advance the knowledge gained by experience or observation? How do you know your observations or perception of reality such as epicycles is valid? My question is in this context. The answer is trying to gain intellectual knowledge or rational logical explanation.

I clearly said in earlier messages, we must admit our knowledge is imperfect and far from Truth. Research is pursuit of absolute Truth, which often includes getting closer and closer to the absolute Truth.

The 2300 years old error “the Earth is static at the center” diverted mankind’s research into a wrong path for 1800 years until 16th century. Discoveries such as “the Sun is at the center” put our research efforts into the right path. Mankind’s research efforts in the right path resulted in the discoveries such as universal gravity, Newton’s laws and general relativity that pushed our knowledge closer and closer to the Truth.

We know today that it is error to believe “the Earth is static” and rely on it for advancing our knowledge. Trying to advancing our knowledge by relying on flawed belief diverts our research efforts into a wrong path, and results in a dominant flawed paradigm such as geocentric paradigm.

Similar error has been repeated in software. Existing dominant software engineering paradigm is rooted in 50 to 60 years’ old flawed beliefs about the components and CBD/CBE. These errors can be and must be exposed by gaining intellectual knowledge about the components and CBD/CBE of physical products. Exposing the error only puts research efforts on the right path.

I never said we can discover absolute Truth. My contusion is that, researchers have been investing their research efforts in a wrong path by relying on untested and unproven 50 to 60 years old flawed beliefs. Gaining intellectual knowledge only exposes flawed knowledge (and improves quality of our knowledge). The best way to get closer to the Truth is exposing such flawed knowledge.

In that context, intellectual knowledge only improves quality of practical knowledge by helping us gain insights and wisdom, where the wisdom is our ability to extract value from the knowledge, for example, such as making inventions or innovations.

Best Regards,

Raju

Hello .... you simply do not know that the Earth is not in the center. This is only the currently prevailing theory. You - do - not - *know* - this. To realize this, is the real advancement. So you have to teach this lesson to those who stick to old paradigms. I still do not see that your concepts of practical and intellectual knowledge are well-defined. You are on a wrong path.

Dear Mr. Franke,

Which one is closer to the absolute Truth or objective reality: The Earth is static at the center, or the Sun is at the center of our planetary system? You are presenting an argument that is not sustainable for sake of an argument, and is not in good faith.

If the Earth is at the center, every thing we know and everything we feel we have been experiencing (e.g. Internet, computers or air travel) today must be illusion. The modern scientific advancement is based on Newton’s laws and discovery of basic forces of nature such as Gravity and Electro Magnetism etc.

If the Earth is at the center, it would be nightmare to explain epicycles. The objective reality was painted by Kepler’s 3 laws, reasoned by Newton’s laws, universal gravity, laws of motion and calculus. These proofs and reasoning were confirmed by many things such as discovery of Neptune due to perturbations in the orbit of Uranus.

I don’t thing, there exists any counter evidence to disprove Heliocentric model. If you have, please present. If the Heliocentric model is flawed, we have to start with “I Think, Therefore I am”, as Rene Descartes did when geocentric paradigm was subverted.

Dr. Karl Popper’s argument is you must discard any belief or theory, if it is thoroughly disproved. A fact or theory can never be proved but falsified, if it is flawed. Today scientific community accepted Heliocentric model because no one can find a valid counter evidence, but millions of pieces of evidence accumulated in support of Heliocentric model. You are free to provide counter evidence to subvert the heliocentric model, but until that point it is a proven fact. The geocentric model was thoroughly disproved beyond any doubt. There is no valid evidence exists in support of geocentric model.

I hope to engage in productive debate backed by evidence and facts. Any thing you say must be backed by facts and evidence. Not mere frivolous speculation or troll. Please provide evidence to your argument, else it is just a troll. Please go read philosophy of science and "scientific method" formulated and perfected by many greatest philosophers of science during past 400 years.

I worked many years in semiconductor industry inspecting and testing chips having billions of circuits. I am sure it was not an illusion. All this end up being an illusion, if the very foundation to our modern scientific knowledge is rooted in a lie. Could we build fiber optic networks by being clueless about the light and how it behaves in optical fibers? All these are interconnected. Each of them is working is a testament to validity of our knowledge. I am not saying our knowledge is perfect, but it is good enough to invent such wonderful things we take for granted.

We can make each of these things even better by improving the intellectual knowledge. There may be long way to go, but it is foolish to deny such progress and achievements. The Earth is not at the center was conclusively proven. The Sun is at the center is conclusively proven. Denying these facts is like denying every thing we know. There are many facts we knew, such as there exist a force attraction between any two things having mass. The magnitude of attraction is formulated by Newton, which was very close but not perfect.

Einstein's relativity formulated the magnitude further closer to the Truth. May be someone else can improve the precision even closer, but it is foolish to deny the very existence of force of attraction between 2 things having mass. Your support the geocentric model, is like until we discover the perfect formula to calculate the magnitude, we must deny the very existence of the force of attraction. You can’t deny the progress and achievements by using excuses such as the absolute Truths are far away or we can never discover the absolute Truths.

Bye,

Raju

We are on the verge of pulling off quantum computers. Deep Learning problem-solving capabilities are undeniable, still a lot of its components are 'black boxes'. We certainly haven't mastered quantum-mechanics or artifical intelligence yet. The knowledge we seem to be building tech on is almost always of the 'practical' kind.

I get your intuition that the pursuit of 'intellectual' knowledge should drive our research beyond the comfort zone of current 'practical' knowledge. But in terms of your original question, one can be (relatively) sure their 'practical' knowledge is valid if they can use it towards an observable end in a predictable manner. There is no apparent need to consider any contradictory 'intellectual' knowledge to appreciate the validity of current 'practical' knowledge. Even contradictory 'intellectual' knowledge does not necessarily render past 'practical' knowledge invalid.

I think we can re-frame the discussion as an exploitation ('practical) vs exploration ('intellectual') problem and talk optimal strategies on that.

Dear Raju Chiluvuri,

I have the strong feeling that you seriously misunderstood Karl Popper. Your idea of "facts" and "evidence" etc. indicates this clearly. Proof of your wrong idea of Karl Popper is your claim that it is proven that the sun is in the center. I would rather say that it is disproven that the earth is in the center. Concerning your positive statement that the sun is in the center, I would not recommend to make a dogma out of it. You never know what will come. All your knowledge is only relative. All your knowledge without exception.

If you make a dogma out of currently prevailing views, you do not behave better than any former researcher who thought that it is obvious that the earth is in the center.

By the way, there is no such thing as "the" center, in which the sun could be. The sun is in one of two focal points of an elliptic curve of planet earth's path through space. But even this is only our currently best guess. It is not sure that this knowledge will hold for eternity. You cannot call something "certain knowledge" only because you have no counter-evidence.

You really miss the point with your two not-well-defined terms "practical" and "intellectual" knowledge. There is only one kind of knowledge, and progress does not provide "facts" and "evidence" etc., but only better and better guesses.

Dear Mr. Franke,

We can’t pack billion transistors in a chip by better guesses. We can’t transmit terabytes of data by better guesses. Our understanding may not be perfect, but it is good enough. For example, interchangeable components are designed to be identical. But in reality, they are not identical, but variations are so minute and within acceptable tolerances.

After so many confirmations, “the Sun is at the center” can’t be a guess. If things such as Heliocentric model or attraction between two things having mass is flawed, only logical explanation is that we are being fooled by super deceiver (as in the movie Matrix). Please watch interesting video about Popper: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-X8Xfl0JdTQ

You make risky predictions and if it is proven, it can be accepted as a theory, as long as it can’t be falsified. After millions of testes, if it can’t be falsified, it must be accepted as fact (of course within acceptable tolerance). It doesn’t mean, it is absolute Truth but close enough for all practical purposes. Also it must be open for testing, so that any one can falsify, if and when new evidence is discovered.

Certainty might not be possible for most of the things, but it doesn’t imply certainty is impossible for each and every thing. If the things I have been experiencing are not an illusion (e.g. we are not in Matrix), that I am sure that it is a fact: There exists a force of attraction (known as gravitational pull) between any two bodies having mass and the Earth is not static at the center. We are certain about many such things.

I don’t think, Dr. Popper said certainty is impossible in each and every case. He proposed scientific method for acquiring new knowledge or validating exiting knowledge. Any one is free to find evidence to disprove gravitation, but until finding counter evidence it can be treated as proven fact.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Mr. Chardalias,

I mostly agree with you, but my views have certain differences. There is a difference between experience and perception. Observation of retrograde motion is more like perception rather than experience. Conclusions drawn form perceptions could be wrong.

Another point is, I feel, experience and intellectual knowledge are complimentary to gain deeper insights. For example, implementing intellectual knowledge about semiconductors or fiber optics helped advance our practical knowledge, which in turn helped advance our intellectual knowledge. Likewise, finding intellectual knowledge for practical experience can help us advance our practical experiences to create better solutions, which in turn advances our intellectual knowledge – One complements the other.

These are my personnel views, in the context of problems I am facing. They may be other contexts, where my views may be not accurate. Of course, our perceptions are shaped by our experiences. Different experiences or circumstances might create different perceptions.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

You are back with your usual senseless gibberish. You don’t give me enough time to miss your gibberish. Why do you hate using scientific (common sense) method for gaining intellectual knowledge so much? Your hatred blinding you to see even simple logic and reasoning. Let me try one more time.

The objective of scientific research is pursuit of absolute Truth for comprehending overall objective reality, which often includes getting closer and closer to the Truth. In most cases, you can’t discover absolute Truth, so best thing we can do is use everything at our disposal to get closer and closer to the Truth. We must device and use everything possible to measure to be certain that new discovery or theory is closer to the objective reality.

Weather we admit or not, our knowledge is imperfect and far from Truth. So how do we know, how far we are from the Truth or objective reality. Many brilliant minds devised scientific method in 17th century and have been perfecting ever since.

In fact it is the sacred duty of every researcher is pursuit of absolute Truth, which often includes getting closer and closer to the absolute Truth by sticking to the right path. Weather we admit are not, our knowledge is not perfect and there is lot of room for improvements and progress. The Copernicus’s 16th century discovery “the Sun is at the centre” may be 1000 miles away from the absolute Truth, but it is certainly 100 times better than then best available prevailing knowledge “The Earth is static at the centre” in 16th century.

There is another profound difference: Investing research efforts by relying on a fact such as “the Sun is at the centre”, helps researchers get closer and closer to the Truth (by keeping the efforts in the right path), while relying on a lie such as “The Earth is static at the centre” pushes away researchers from the Truth/Reality by diverts research efforts into a wrong path (and makes it harder and harder to see even obvious facts by altering their perception).

Therefore, a new fact in the right direction is 100 times better than a lie (or bad clue) that diverts research efforts (or investigation) in to a wrong direction. Investing research efforts by relying on a fact keeps the research efforts on the right path and takes researchers closer and closer to the Truth. On the other hand, investing research efforts by relying on a lie diverts the research efforts into a wrong path, so can never help researchers make any tangible progress.

It is our duty to provide measurements to make sure a new theory taking us closer to the Truth. For example, Kepler’s 3 laws improved our ability to predict planetary locations 24 months from now improved 100 times better (e.g. 1% to 2% error). Then Newton’s discoveries allowed us to predict the locations with 99.9% accuracy.

Peter, how can you become dumber and dumber? We can device objective mechanisms to measure if we are getting closure to the Truth or further from the Truth. That is the measure you must use. Only fools try to defend or justify relying on the lies (e.g. the Earth is static) by using excuses such as the Copernicus’s discovery “the Sun is at the centre” is far from absolute Truth. Who said it is absolute Truth about the objective reality. It is only 10 times better than knowledge existed in 16th century – A huge progress in the right direction. I have no idea, you have trouble understanding simple logic.

The intellectual knowledge or scientific knowledge helps us measure, monitor and validate, if we are getting closer and closer to the Truth, or going further from the Truth. The primary purpose of scientific method is never to confirm, but to dis-confirm and measure the error.

The discoveries of Einstein such as E=MC-Square was huge progress compared to then prevailing knowledge. It doesn’t matter for me, if it is not perfect. This is True doesn't imply everything else he said must be True. It matters, if it can push our knowledge closer to the Truth and we can measure the improvement. We have 10% data about black holes or million other things. Only fools deny things we already knew by using our failure in other things.

Every research makes educated assumptions to explore new frontiers. They are merely unproven theories. These theories are no different from these theories: Last year many people betting Clinton would win, and other’s betting Trump would win. Don’t confuse between completely uncertain things with thing that are proven.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

I don’t want to pretend that I know E=MC-Square or GR. I am just blindly following the crowed. But I am sure, you understood my point of being able to measure to make sure that our research efforts stay on the right path and getting closure and closer to the Truth.

But in the context of components and real CBD/CBE, I have been doing research passionately for over 16 years after or since I accidentally stumbling onto software parts that can be assembled (or plugged-in). We (i.e. employees of my company) created 1000s of component hierarchies, so I am well qualified to make such statements.

The designers of physical products use two kinds of parts (i) reusable and/or ingredient parts, and (ii) parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled, where the 2nd kind of parts are infect created by using 1st kind of parts. Achieving the CBD/CBE of any product requires using 2nd kind of parts.

Do you thing, is it possible to invent software components that can be assembled (or plugged-in)? If it is possible, why no single software product in the world is built by plugging-in such parts that can be assembled? If it is not possible, there must be a valid reason. What is it?

It is easy to falsify any theory or fact, if it supported by one or more proofs. To falsify, all I need to do is find flaws in the proofs. It was so hard to falsify the belief “the Earth is at the center”, because it had no proof. Likewise, there are no proofs for beliefs for so called components and CBSD. There are proofs for E=MC-Squared or GR. You can falsify them by finding a flaw in the proof.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

I should pick you as my lawyer, in my up coming legal case against respected government funded research organizations. You can argue both sides persuasively.

My argument is simple: Any dominant paradigm can be subverted, if it is rooted in flawed beliefs (or system of interdependent beliefs) – There is no exception to this rule.

Why don’t you join me in this effort (see attached PDF)? You are brilliant and yet it is perplexing, why you can’t understand simple logic? May be you are playing devil's advocate to help me. All of us predisposed to defend status quo and follow the crowd. It makes no difference, if I follow the crowd in case of Einstein’s discoveries, because it is not my field of expertise.

It is our sacred duty to investigate evidence and defend the Truth in the field of our expertise. Both of us belong to computer science and software engineering. I am not saying, don’t criticize me. Your criticism helped me a lot. But also when I am not seeing, investigate the evidence to know the Truth and defend the truth.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

I am not saying that, it is not a worthy battle to determine which one is closure to the Truth (i) Einstein’s theories or (ii) GR theories. Such debates and fierce battles are essential for us to gain insights advance intellectual knowledge to get closure to the Truth and objective reality (as long as they are in good faith).

But I disagree with using such excuses to discredit all the concrete progress that can be measured. Any healthy debate requires putting good faith arguments by acknowledging the evidence or facts, which can’t be countered. It must be given due credit, if Einstein’s theories advance our intellectual knowledge substantially compared to them prevailing state.

We must give credit, even if they shed a light into unexplored frontiers that leads to tangible progress. I see it as a journey to enlightenment. In such journey, you learn more from failures than successes.

I heard an interesting quote some thing like this: A fluke success may make you famous and arrogant, but each failure after hard fighting make you wiser humble and more enlightened by introducing you the harsh realities. A success is sweeter and deserving, after many many hard fought failures.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

We have to explore all possibilities and all perspectives. Newton’s discovery of gravity was dramatically confirmed by the discovery of Neptune due to perturbations in the orbit of Uranus. We have to keep looking for such confirmations or serendipitous discoveries.

We don’t know what can be discovered until it is discovered. Our job is keep looking for the truth without any prejudice and preconceived notions and go wherever facts and evidence lead us.

The hardest part is figuring out what are our prejudice and preconceived notions to keep ourselves having open mind. Any one can become a good scientist, if he could figure out his prejudice and preconceived notions.

All the discoveries are on the right path, so we can find them as long as you can stay on the right path. You can’t find things that don’t even exist. There are no discoveries on any wrong path such as geocentric model. Our job is to keep ourselves in the right path solely based on facts and evidence by detecting and fixing our prejudice and preconceived notions.

Newton theories explain what is gravity such as (i) there exists a force of attraction between any two bodies having mass (ii) the force of attraction is inversely proportional to the square of the distance between the bodies, and other such things. These are observable or measurable things. Einstein’s theories try to provide intellectual or scientific explanation for these effects of gravity by using space and time. How can they be contradictory?

Why is it any different from this: Kepler 3 laws explain the reality of planetary orbits. Newton’s theories such as gravity and three laws of motion provided intellectual or scientific reasoning for orbits of planets. Where is the conflict between Kepler 3 laws and Newton’s theories? Likewise, there is no conflict between Newton’s theories and Einstein’s theories. Newton said there is attraction between any two bodies. Einstein’s theory try to explain reasons for attraction between any two bodies.

Such scientific progress adds new chapters to science text books. There is no need to change the old chapters in the text book. But subverting a dominant paradigm requires rewriting existing text books by removing or replacing fiction or illusions such as epicycles acquired by relying of flaw beliefs. This creates friction and hurt egos, because many of their proud contributions such as research papers end up being invalidated and revenue sources such as books, consulting or career end up being affected. This attracts wrath of research community.

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

This is the time you need to use your prowess in mathematics. Try you prove orbital speeds are not inversely proportional to distance square. Try to prove they fall at different speeds in vacuumed glass cube.

You can coat magnetic material to feather to hold on the surface using a magnet. Then flip the vacuumed glass box and remove the magnet. If iron ball falls faster than the feather in the vaccume box, you provided compelling evidence to support your point.

If you can prove gravity is an illusion, you subverted a dominant paradigm that is at least 100 times bigger than geocentric paradigm. We need to rewrite the whole physics books (by starting from “I think Therefore I am”). May be we are in a matrix :-). Everything we feel we are experience is an illusion created by a super deceiver :-(.

You said: If our bodies were held down by gravity, then why aren't we plucked up off the Earth's surface by the attraction of the rest of the Universe? The gravitational force felt by a body should be the equal to that of the aggregate of the attracting masses at their centroid. You are not going to tell me that we are stituated at the exact centre of the Universe!

I am sure you are kidding. May be the answer is centrifugal force. That may be the reason; the whole universe is circling some thing. Planets are circling the Sun or stars. The stars are circling the black hole at the center of each galaxy.

The big bang theory says that the universe is expanding. If you throw a stone up, it travels up wards, the gravity slows its speed to zero at some point and it starts falling. Once the expansion stops, it starts contraction.

P.S: You may be right and I may be just an ignorant (having no open mind) predisposed to defend the status quo (by relying on my prejudice and preconceived notions as you have been doing in case of so called software components). As ordinary incompetent ignorant, I would be thinking this (but won’t say): How dare you to question greatest scientists such as Newton and Einstein (and accepted by thousands of other great researchers). How rude and arrogant. Do you think you are smarter than all the genius accepted the gravity (or definitions for components for CBD/CBE:-)? If I were a competent parson, I must demand for proof and expose valid flaws in the proof. But being incompetent to understand your proof, to cover up my incompetency I resort to veiled insults, snubbing or give evasive condescending or patronizing advice.

Enough sarcasm or trying to be funny, how would you explain things such as Moon staying in the orbit around the Earth and high tide or low tide? Keep in mind that I am incompetent, so if I can’t understand I would resort to evasive answers or insults :-).

Best Regards,

Raju

Dear Dr. Peter,

You said: Do your superpowers switch on when it comes to that one thing?

Yes!. I have been doing research passionately on the component based design for nearly 16 years. The CBD/CBE research has been my full time job for past 16 years. In fact, the questions about real artificial intelligence and why we can’t design and engineer software products as we can do physical products were lingering questions since 1988 as an hobby.

Thanks to you and others, I have been gaining in sights on scientific method and philosophy of science since 2014. If I am successful in exposing the lies at the root of CBD/CBE, I would like to focus on real artificial intelligence.

I didn’t give full answer for gravity, because I though you were kidding. I still thing you are kidding. Besides I am not an expert on physics. I have master’s degree in computer science.

I like to focus on one thing (and just one thing) at a time and try to advance the thing I have been working. To do that, you need to be aware of every thing going on around the world in that area.

For example, this work needs things like scientific method, industrial engineering and knowledge about things such as why inventions such as Interchangeable Components and Ford’s moving assembly line increased manual productivity, or how companies such as Boeing helping customers able to replace components for many variants of airplanes in Airports around the world.

Mankind have been using special kind of parts that are designed to be assembled and perfecting innovations for past 200 years, where the special kind of parts is widely known as components. No part can be a component, if the part can’t be assembled.

Don’t you agree, all this knowledge about special kind of physical parts that can be assembled would be valuable, when software engineers start using special kind of software parts that are designed and conducive to be assembled?

For example, many designers of products such as automobile or airplanes are obsessed with providing “service access” to components (i.e. special kind of parts that can be assembled), which are prone to wear and tear and requires frequent maintenance. In software, we could use “service access” to every part, because 80% of software engineering is changing existing code.

I hope, scientists doing research on gravity are not doing sloppy work as the computers scientists doing research on software engineering. You claim that you are researcher in computer science. So I expect you to be expert of software engineering. In my view, my logic is better than your logic for gravity. It depends on our perceptions.

I know 100 points, but I picked only couple of points I feel more important in my view. You may feel other points are more important. If don’t make those points doesn’t mean I don’t know them. When you want to be brief, you have to pick top few point you feel important. Also I admit, I am not an expert on gravity. My knowledge is from class books I read in High School in 1970s.

Best Regards,

Raju