banner banner  

How is it possible to expose error in seed postulation of mature paradigm?

How can any one expose errors in the seed postulations of a mature and deeply entrenched paradigm? How is possible for a short paper to provide point-by-point counter to thousands of research papers submitted and concluded as credible evidence (by being accepted by respected peers, respected journals and conferences) spanning few decades as evidence for supporting the absurd lie (i.e. each kind of software parts having certain useful properties is a kind of software components)? Many feel that we are insulting common sense, even if we humbly request to objectively analyze facts by applying the basic scientific principles/processes.
The fact is, tens of thousands of scientists, researchers, engineers and practitioners have been working passionately to advance the software engineering by applying brute force for decades, without even contemplating the possibility that there might be an error in the seed postulations. Unfortunately the jury consists of the very scientists or researchers who spend their carriers defending the absurd lie (i.e. errors in the seed postulations) and trying to advance the computer science based on the lie (i.e. erroneous seed axioms) by using epicycles. How can a short paper provide point by point rebuttal to thousands of research papers, many of the epicycles were written with passion or accepted with conviction by the vary members of the jury.
Most experts and researchers agree with all of my observations and facts, but stubbornly argue that they only applicable to the physical components and CBD for physical products. They refuse to accept that it is an absurd lie (i.e. each kind of useful part is a kind of component for real CBD), by using countless baseless excuses such as referring one or more research papers selected from the thousands of available research papers for defending the absurd lie. It is illegal circular logic to use such epicycles (i.e. papers) to defend the geocentric model, since there are no epicycles (if earth is not static at the center).
Can the Earth and the Sun be static at the center same time? Likewise, discoveries of real software components and CBD for software (which is backed by irrefutable facts, easily verifiable observations and sound rational reasoning), can’t coexist with prevailing fake software components and fake CBD for software. Of course, we agree that all the existing research and published papers might be accurate with respect to software modules, but can’t be used to prove that such software modules are components. Likewise, the maps of epicycles were also accurate, in the context of planetary paths with respect a man standing on the Earth (or if the Earth were static at center). But it is illegal circular logic to use such epicycles (i.e. papers) to defend the geocentric model, since there are no epicycles (if earth is not static at the center).
In the dark ages, the philosophers not only defended an absurd lie (e.g. the Earth is static at center) using the maps of epicycles but also refuse to see evidence through then newly invented telescope, which could easily exposed the lie. The real scientists learned a valuable lesion that, no such lie can ever become a real fact, even by investing thousand times the accumulated wealth and power ever existed on the Earth.
Any scientist or researcher must be ashamed of himself, if he doesn’t understand the first and the most important lesson: Any greatest scientific achievement known to making is nothing but discovering hidden truths/facts of nature. On the other hand, many of the greatest failures of scientific community were result of defending absurd lies by using circular logic and refuse to see clear and convincing evidence (e.g. simple facts and observations, which can expose absurd lies). Instead of accepting the basic irrefutable facts by taking a step back for reevaluating the seed postulations, the scientific community chosen to defend the absurd-lie by using the very epicycles that can’t exist (if there is an error in the seed postulations).
I can’t believe, even in the 21st century that the principle scientists and researchers in the software industry acting no differently than the religious zealots in the dark ages. Even the religious zealots have reasonable justification, because it is impossible to observe the planetary orbits by using best tools available then. Except deliberately ignoring the facts, what justification software scientists could offer to defend the absurd lie: each kind of flying (i.e. CBD for software) is flapping a kind of wings (i.e. using a kind of fake components).
Is it impossible to find accurate description for the CBD for the physical products? But many principle scientists are ignoring and refusing to accept obvious facts: There is just one kind of real CBD for the physical products. There is only one very special kind of physical parts (having very unique essential properties) that are capable of achieving the real CBD, where the very special kind of physical parts are popularly known as components.
For example, mankind knows that there is just one kind of real flying and to grasp what is flying, any one can observe objects that are flying in the sky such as birds, airplanes or spacecrafts. Likewise to find accurate description for the only one possible kind of CBD for the physical products, one can observe physical products that are built by using real components and hierarchies of real components. If any one believes my accurate description given to the one kind of real CBD, is it impossible to find a flaw?
How it possible for a short paper to provide credible point-by-point counter to thousands of published research papers (especially to a jury highly biased and unconsciously or instinctively passionate defenders of the absurd-lie)?
i. It is easy to find a set of excuses. There are thousands of Epicycles to choose the set of Epicycles by each of the members of the jury. 
ii. It is impossible to predict which set of Epicycles are favorite for any member of jury. 
iii. Anonymous jury is selected to evaluate research papers. So it is impossible for the inventor to provide a counter argument to unknown set of excuses.
How is it possible to win a circular argument, if the scientific community chosen to defend the absurd-lie by using the very epicycles that were in fact resulted from the absurd lie? Instead they must take a step back to reevaluate the facts to see, if they can find any flaw in the facts for refuting the facts. Hence the inventor must educate the jury about the circular logic and request the jury to not use the circular logic to invalidate the revolutionary discoveries or inventions.
This is a classic example for a circular logic (especially with respect to the components for the real CBD for software): One must accept that, all the epicycles are created by assuming that the premise (i.e. the absurd lie) is a fact. Hence each of the epicycles is invalid and a fallacy, when the premise is proven to be an error. If a discovery or invention exposes errors in a premise (i.e. an absurd lie), it is foolish to defend the premise using the circular logic by relying on the invalid Epicycles. The software industry must accept the results, if newly discovered irrefutable facts prove that a basic premise is an absurd lie (instead of defending the absurd-lie using circular reasoning by relying on its Epicycles).
In the beginning, the scientific community (i.e. principle philosophers and astronomers) erroneously believed that the Earth is static at the center. Based on the premise, they observed the heavens for thousands of years and created elaborate maps for the planetary motion. A map for each planet comprised many epicycles over epicycles (e.g. comprising up and down motion, due to 23.5 degrees of tilt in the Earth’s axis of rotation and retrograde motion of each planet). Each map was painstakingly created a by a group of astronomers. The maps were validated and accepted by independent peers as accurate facts.
Later few scientists discovered that the Sun and not the Earth is at center. It is impossible to find a reference to back the new discovery. The new discovery was vehemently opposed by the astronomers already spent their lives relying on the maps comprising Epicycles and perfecting the Epicycles. The principle philosophers and astronomers strongly believed that the maps are absolute truths, since the maps were verified and rigorously validated by countless astronomers for centuries. The philosophers and astronomers used the maps that are rigorously validated for centuries (i) to defend an absurd-lie: the Earth is static at the center (an absurd lie) and (ii) to oppose the absolute fact: the Sun is at the center. One can see how circular logic was used to defend an absurd lie.
The principle philosophers and astronomers refuse to accept that the maps are invalid, which had been validated and handed down for centuries and they have been perfecting all their lives. It is impossible to expose the error (i.e. the Earth is static at the center) after agreeing that the Epicycles were true. While they have been painstakingly documenting the planetary positions for the map, it might never even have crossed their mind that the Earth might be moving. Likewise even today principle scientists of software industry using such Epicycles and circular logic to defend an absurd-lie. Unfortunately, they even refuse to contemplate the possibility that useful parts such as ingredient-parts (e.g. steel, cement, plastic, silicon or glass) are not real components for enabling real CBD.

Copy Right © 2013 SPPS Systems Pvt.Ltd. All Rights Reserved.
This Website presents patented and patent-pending Inventions and Discoveries