| |
Threat of fake inventors/scientists & irrational skeptics or unethical experts
|
|
|
Any invention base on truly disruptive scientific discovery requires open honest intellectual debate between competent inventor & experts who are passionate about science. There are 2 kinds of enemies who are extremely harmful to such disruptive discoveries & scientific progress:
|
|
| 1 |
A fake inventor, researchers or scientist publicly claims to invent or discover a breakthrough, but refuse to disclose secret formula for other competent experts to validate the breakthrough. He must not publicly claim credit for such a disruptive discovery, until he is ready for independent validation of his discovery by challenging other experts. If he knows that he is right, there is no reason to fear for a real scientist to openly challenge other experts. Especially after encountering losing battles with the irrational skeptics or incompetent and unethical experts (see below), one of the best option left to expose such disruptive discovery is by openly challenging the collective wisdom of experts to find a flaw in his discoveries.
|
|
|
| 2 |
The unethical experts, researchers and scientists are also often irrational skeptics (many of them are fake or incompetent). Most of them have no intellectual curiosity, passion or love for their scientific field, except self-promotion, for example, by using unsubstantiated lies for diverting attention to unrelated issues to hide their incompetence.
|
|
| Please read the following famous quote of George Bernard Shaw: |
|
|
My Dear:
|
|
The uttering of the Sun being the center was blasphemous. The notion that all men and women should be treated equally was blasphemous. The Origin of Species was blasphemous. All great truths begin as blasphemies.
|
|
Falsely yours … … … … George Bernard Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fact is a true disruptive discovery exposes errors in seed axioms of deeply entrenched collective conventional wisdom of a complex paradigm that has been evolving for
decades by relying on the erroneous seed axioms (without even suspecting possible error). An incompetent expert instead of attacking facts or rational reasoning of the inventor, the irrational skeptic unethically use public perception, prejudice and misconceptions (of existing paradigm) for discrediting the truth/facts exposed by the true discovery and to protect the errors.
|
|
|
Unethical experts use many insidious ways to cover-up their incompetence. For example, the irrational skeptics pretend they are busy by giving just few minutes to present such complex disruptive discoveries and
sidetrack the time bound presentation to unrelated issues by demanding answers to questions on unrelated aspects.
Such insidious tactics include, sidetracking such short debate using lies as facts and demand answers without contradicting the so called facts. If inventor can't provide proof without contradicting,
and left with no option but humbly request to substantiate the so called fact, the skeptic feels offended and start insulting the inventor.
|
|
|
Even if the area of discovery is outside of his area of expertise or his ability to grasp, an unethical expert or irrational skeptic (http://ezinearticles.com/?Irrational-Skepticism&id=428104) never admit lack of his knowledge that
could pave the way for other honest competent experts to validate the discoveries. Also he never agrees to fact such as ‘the emperor has no cloths’ fearing it would tantamount to admitting his incompetence.
|
|
| |
We humbly requesting the irrational skeptics to remember that, pursuit of absolute truths (i.e. facts) is the noble objective and sacred duty shared by all the real scientists, researchers and experts. We are not asking any one to believe us,
but humbly requesting each to discover truths on his own by objectively analyzing all facts and valid observations (most of which are listed and summarized in this website only to assist in discovering truths oneself).
|
|
|
|
|
The scientific progress is nothing but discovering new scientific truths/facts for expanding boundaries of human knowledge. Any one abdicated their sacred duty of pursuing absolute Truth and tries to hinder open honest exchange of ideas for self-promotion or to hide his incompliancy is an enemy to the scientific progress. So any honest inventor publicly claimed a disruptive discovery must also openly publish irrefutable proof for validation by honest and competent experts having intellectual curiosity, true love and passion for their scientific field. Truth shall prevail sooner rather than later in an open and honest exchange of ideas.
|
|
|
Our struggle to make experts aware of error in unsubstantiated seed postulation of deeply entrenched collective wisdom of a mature paradigm (that has been evolving for decades) is more humiliating work than any one can possibly imagine. All an irrational skeptic need to do is see in a mirror, if he ever wonders what kind of researchers supported killed Giordano Bruno, forced Galileo to recant under the threat of execution and imprisoned Galileo for rest of his life for advocating inconvenient truth. It is hard to believe, why exchanges of ideas for providing proof for scientific and technological facts drive any one to resorting to uncivilized/mean personal insults (by forgetting or abdicating sacred duty of finding Truth implicitly shared by all the experts)? Unfortunately many irrational skeptics put their egos and/or self-promotion above implicit shared sacred duty of finding Truth.
|
|
|
Please Kindly Understand the Harsh Realities of Real Scientific Discoveries:
|
|
|
The objective of the website is to openly present all facts and our discoveries to humbly challenge collective wisdom of all the researchers and experts (e.g. to find any flaw), with all due respect. A true discovery requires is competent experts willing to honestly verify facts for (i) conclusively exposing the obvious error stated as the first fact below and (ii) validating each of the simple connecting dots or steps starting from the first fact (which is causing huge pain, widely known an ‘software crisis’) and leading to second fact (which is the right cure for the ailing CBSD).
|
|
|
Please understand the harsh realities of true discoveries that can pave the way for true scientific revolution by exposing basic errors in current paradigm. My harsh criticism might feel like melodramatic for a layman, who is reading my harsh criticism for the first time. But I have been receiving end of many enemies of scientific discoveries (many of them choose to insult the messenger, instead of try to find valid flaw in the discoveries or the messages). Insulting any real discovery without showing a valid flaw only exposes one's ignorance/incompetence.
Unfortunately destiny trusted me into an unenviable possession of exposing an error in root postulation on which existing software paradigm have been evolving for decades. No one choose to be humiliated, but certain battles worth fighting (so harder to give-up & accept defeat).
|
|
|
A first irrefutable fact is: It is absolutely foolish to believe any other kinds of parts (e.g. ingredient parts such as metals, silicon, plastic, steel, paint or glass) having certain useful properties is a kind of components and using such fake components is a kind of CBD. This error resulted in many kinds of fake components and many kinds of fake CBSDs. They are serious mistakes having extremely severe consequences (i.e. software crisis). It is invalid to use circular logic to prove that the useful software parts are software components.
|
|
|
A second irrefutable fact is: There is only one kind of real CBD for the physical products and there is only one kind of real components for achieving the real CBD. We discovered a simple fact that the objective of an ideal CBD must be achieving the CBD structure. All we are asking is to discover the accurate description for the real components. Many software researchers foolishly argue it is impossible to discover objective facts about the physical components and CBD of physical products (and refuse to even try to learn obvious facts about the physical components and CBD of physical products)
|
|
|
An irrefutable fact is, each and every physical being must have one and only one accurate description (e.g. a small set of essential characteristics), where the accurate description is an objective-fact. The goals of any real scientific research is to discover the objective-facts about the physical beings. For example, the goal of the string-theory is to discover the objective facts related to the subatomic particles, such as electrons, protons and neutrons etc. Likewise the goal of big-bang-theory is discover the objective facts about the origins of the Universe. Although the mankind may never discover all the objective facts about such complex physical beings or phenomena, no real scientists disputes the existence of such objective-facts (by foolishly insistent they are subjective concepts like the religions, preferences or faith). I am sure every one agrees it is nearly impossible to know what happened billions of years ago at a distance of millions of light years. Even the atoms are millions or billions of times larges than subatomic particles, so how is it possible to create a telescope to see inner workings of the subatomic particles.
|
|
|
On the other hand, we can find any and every fact required to discover accurate answers to the two simple questions in the 'preamble image' at the top of each page fo this website. Today unfortunately answers to these two questions are highly subjective. I am sure, no engineer must have problem recognizing 95% of the physical components and also to recognize 95% of the physical products built by assembling the components. Hence we already know the answers subconsciously. All we need to discover is terminology to list absolutely essential characteristics uniquely and universally shared by each and every large functional physical components (e.g. to positively/unambiguously identify equivalent functional components in software applications) for achieving the real CBSD (e.g. to achieve a structure equivalent to the CBD-structure).
|
|
|
The fact is physical components are physical beings and CBD of physical products is a physical phenomena. Any one consider himself real scientist, researcher or engineer must be ashamed of himself, if he stubbornly insist that it is impossible to discover accurate descriptions for the CBD of physical products and physical components. Unlike internal structure of subatomic particles or big-bang-theory, experts already know or can easily find any and every fact and valid observations related to the physical-CBD/components, where the known facts and observations further can be used to re-validate/re-confirm the answers (i.e. descriptions) in multiple ways.
|
|
| |
Please kindly understand that this is a real scientific and engineering research effort to expose error of very fundamental aspects of computer science, which requires very serious effort of highly competent experts. Any real scientific research requires irrefutable proof (not a mere suspicion, skepticism or silly excuses such as: if it is right, why brilliant minds at MIT, Stanford, Google or IBM didn’t already think of it).
This website provides many facts, valid observations and sound rational reasoning to expose the basic errors (in multiple ways) of the existing deeply entrenched paradigm and collective wisdom. I will stand by each and every proof, observation, fact and reasoning, which together not only to clearly expose errors in the basic concepts but also contradict widely accepted practices/concepts of the existing paradigm. I can back this by clear and conclusive factual evidence such as real components and CBD-structures.
We expect the same scientific rigor from the experts who wish to defend the erroneous ontology of the existing paradigm. Only incompetent researcher use baseless or silly excuses to snub our poof (or insult us) on mere prejudice or irrational skepticism and refuse to substantiate such silly excuses (e.g. by refusing to give me an opportunity to defend or listen our response). I openly put all the evidence in a public website, so any expert can enlist collective wisdom of his brilliant friends or colleague (e.g. to find a valid flaw in our proof or to substantiate his proof).
| |
|
|
|
If there is an error in seed postulations, this fact still shall be true even if I can’t provide irrefutable proof in 45 minute presentation to irrational skeptics pretended to be busy and use silly excuses or lies to divert from real issues. If the skeptic is a researcher of software, the existence of such undetected error continue to waste not only his efforts but also efforts of tens of thousands of researchers around the world who are trying to advance existing software engineering paradigm, which has been evolved by relying on such erroneous postulation. If the error is not detected for another decade, lost opportunity costs to the world economy must be in trillions, while millions of software engineers continue to waste most of their effort on creating and maintaining spaghetti code (which can be avoided by fixing broken scientific process for exposing the error).
|
|
