banner banner  

Business Experts can’t validate Scientific Discoveries

The scientific discoveries are scientific problem that only can be addressed by the respected scientists and researchers, although may have huge financial and economical implications only (i) if the scientific discoveries are true and (ii) the discoveries are independently validated and publicly accepter by scientists. Hence evaluating the business models before validating the scientific discoveries is a mistake, which never works (e.g. like putting the cart before the hoarse).
To give an analogy, for example, a researcher made set of complex and unbelievable discovery of unknown structure and facts about cancer cells. Please further assume based on the scientific discoveries, it is no-brainer to invent vaccines for preventing cancer, if the scientific discoveries are proven to be a fact. Hence it is a scientific problem and not a business problem, since almost every one knows it has huge economical implications.
Most of the very experts who snubbed or insulted the unbelievable discoveries (e.g. by arguing that it is impossible based on all the existing knowledge, widely accepted facts and wisdom) likely will be the first to stand in the line to recommend or buy the vaccine for their patients (or for themselves and loved ones), when the discoveries are proven to be true. Otherwise they likely be blamed for malpractice, if patients suffer unnecessarily. Only a fool says he would never use the vaccine, even if it works. Here the question is, weather the discoveries are scientific facts and does it work.
Everybody knows that there is huge market. Hence it is not a business model problem. A irrational skeptic only say, no one in the world believes it is possible hence it can’t be right. Therefore it requires scientific proof that the discoveries are accurate (and it is not necessary to prove there is a market need for the obvious inventions derived from the discoveries). Likewise, almost every expert in the software industry agrees software engineering is in crisis but all the brilliant minds concluded that it is impossible to solve software crisis, for example, by designing and building complex software as engineers design and build complex one-of-a-kind physical products such as experimental Jet-fighters, computers or spacecrafts (e.g. by using real components & component-hierarchies).
If a real invention is based on real scientific discoveries for exposing errors in seed postulations, it is not necessary to win popularity or beauty contest. It still works, even if every expert in the world passionately insists that it can’t work. If it doesn’t work, even every expert in the world passionately argues that it must work, it still can’t work. For example, mankind tried this for 1000 years to make geocentric model work. Can software experts succeed this time in inventing real-CBD (e.g. achieve CBD-structure) by assuming useful parts (that are equivalent to ingredient parts such as cement, paint, sand, plastic or metals) are software components?
We discovered unbelievable facts and structure of the real components and real CBD for the physical products. This is the most complex part, since most of the experts and researchers concluded that it is impossible. Once these discoveries are validated or proven, the invention of real software components and real CBD for software products is almost a trivial task.
Who is best qualified to evaluate viability of a scientific discovery such as a vaccine for cancer: a team of MBAs from Stanford and Harvard at world renowned venture capitalists, or a team of oncology experts from Mayo clinic? Hence the validation of the discoveries is a scientific problem, but not a financial or business model problem. Is there a market need for such vaccine for cancer (or real software components to address software crisis)? If there is no market need, why all these research organizations, universities and medical (or software) companies wasting billions?
Once the discoveries are validated, most of the very irrational skeptics who snubbed or insulted the discoveries will be the first to use the inventions, since their very survival might be in dilemma. Let me give a brief proof, why their long-term survival might be in dilemma:

              Today no maker of any large physical CBD-products (e.g. cars, computers or cell-phones) can stay competitive or even survive without using the real components and real CBD (Component-Based Design).

This above statement just states an obvious and irrefutable fact. If it is possible to invent real software components for enabling the real CBD for software, which can offer benefits equivalent to physical components and CBD of physical-products, the following statement can be logically inferred form above irrefutable fact:

              One day in the future, no large software product can stay competitive or survive for too long without using the real components and real CBD for software, if competing products are designed as the CBD-structure.

I am sure the technology progresses rapidly when it is put on right track by exposing the errors, since the errors derailed the scientific advancements for decades. Once the hidden nature and easily observable facts of real components and CBD are discovered, it is almost no-brainer why engineering of complex software products is in crisis. For example, the engineering of the complex physical products face crisis no different than the engineering of complex software products, if the designers of the complex physical products are prevented from using the real components and real CBD.
Our problem is how is it possible to let the world know our scientific discoveries, for example by getting noticed and validated by independent experts. We could leverage the huge financial opportunity, for example, by finding a win-win business proposal to large software companies or powerful people, who can help us achieve our primary problem: which still must be addressed and evaluated as a scientific discovery and not as a business problem/model.
Putting the cart before the horse never works. Therefore there is no point in wasting time on business model or markets size, even before validating to make sure that the discoveries are real, for example without even grasping how the invention works and what kind of protection the patents can provide.
Can CEO of any software company agree to never use our discoveries or patented inventions? When discoveries expose the basic flaws in the software engineering, how long a complex software product can survive without using real CBD? For example, the fact is software companies (e.g. outsourcing companies such as IBM, Infosys or TCS) can’t sell garbage (i.e. big-ball-of-mud forever, if customer know that he can get software build like CBD-structure, which cots a fraction to built, maintain and evolve to satisfy rapidly changing business needs.

Only purpose of real scientific research is nothing but pursuit of absolute truth

Every real scientist must agree that our only shared goal is pursuit of absolute truth, even if we passionately disagree and insult each other in this pursuit of the absolute truth ( the irrational skeptics started insulting us first). No disrespect is intended, just trying to be funny.

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