Sunday, December 25, 2016

My New Year Wish for 2017 is to break free software engineering from the enslavement of "the Elephant Rope Syndrome" (or “the Baby Elephant Syndrome”)


Dear Friends,

Software engineering has been collectively conditioned between 1960s and 1980s by harsh and painful experiences of failures (e.g. infamous software crisis) and entrapped by “The Elephant Rope Syndrome” for past 25 years. The researchers of computer science and software assumed 50 years ago that it is impossible to invent real-software-components (that are equivalent to the physical components) for achieving real-CBD (Component Based Design) for software, which is equally powerful (and useful) as the CBD for physical products (i.e. equivalent for enjoying the true essence of the CBD).

As a baby elephant is incapable of breaking rope, it is understandable, why it was inconceivable of inventing real-software-components (essential for achieving real CBSD) by the primitive technologies existed 50 years ago and the state of computer science knowledge existed then. As the baby elephant can grow to be a mighty elephant in few decades, software technologies advanced substantially, but now mighty software is enslaved by prejudice & pre-conceived notions, which were conditioned by decades old experiences of painful failures.

The mighty elephant’s perceived limitation and weakness enslaved by the false consciousness of limitations existed in the past (but no longer true). Hence, software engineering has been suffering the Baby Elephant Syndrome by not even making any attempt to break free from the enslavement of things such as the infamous software crisis. For example, the software researchers have been refusing to gain necessary theoretical knowledge by using proven scientific methods for discovering objective reality such as (i) obvious facts about the nature and true essence of the CBD and (ii) nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component.

If the essential properties of the components are {R & S}, no physical part can ever be a component without havening the properties {R & S}. Likewise, no software part can be a real-software-component without having the properties {R & S}. Once such essential properties are discovered, it is a trivial task to invent software-components having the essential properties.

It is impossible to achieve real-CBD by using fake components (i.e. any other kind of parts not having the essential properties). Software researchers are stubbornly refusing to gain necessary knowledge about the nature and objective reality about the components and CBD, by insisting that it is impossible to invent real-software-components and CBD by citing past painful experiences of failures (e.g. decades old things such as “Mythical Man Month” and “No Silver Bullet”).

Software researchers have been brain washed to accept the limitations (existed decades ago and by the past experiences), which are no longer exist since 1990. Based on painful experiences of failures few decades ago (as a baby elephant), software researchers have been foolishly arguing that, even decades of relentless scientific and technological advancements (even after grownup to be a mighty elephant) could never overcome imaginary hurdles such as acquiring necessary knowledge for inventing real-software-components and necessary enabling mechanisms or processes for achieving the real-CBSD.

Today researchers react as if it is a heresy to question the 50 year old unproven or untested myths. Many foolish researchers insisted that, even million years of technological advancements can’t break the rope, as if those unproven myths are proven inalienable laws of nature. In effect, they imply that I am a liar, crazy or even fraud in open forum, when I make the following claims (that are backed by 6 US patents). Don’t they have moral and ethical obligation to give me an opportunity to defend myself, when they imply that I am liar or crazy? I consulted lawyers for filing a defamation case, but the lawyers suggested that the laws and judges are too lenient, so the crony intellectuals can easily get away.

Pioneer-soft discovered necessary knowledge for inventing real-software-components and necessary enabling mechanisms or processes for achieving the real-CBSD. Unfortunately, software researchers refusing to even look at the evidence (e.g. real-software-components and software designed and build by employing CBD), which exposes “the Elephant rope syndrome”. I may have to bribe the software researchers to do their duty, since the researchers abdicated their moral and ethical obligation to address counter-evidence, which helps them overcome “the Elephant rope syndrome” by exposing flawed concepts, theories or observations (of epicycles) being promoted today.

Isn’t it classic example for “the Baby Elephant Syndrome”: If it was inconceivable for the best technologies available (e.g. assembly or Fortran languages) in 1960s (as a baby), it is foolish to insist that it will be inconceivable even in the future (for hundreds of years), even after substantial scientific and technological advancements (grownup to be a mighty elephant).

Unfortunately, researchers foolishly react as if I am a liar or crazy for trying to expose “the Baby Elephant Syndrome” of software researchers or engineering, which already cost trillions of dollars to the world economy and would cost trillions more. Technologies for software engineering advanced sufficiently, by 1990, to break free from “the enslavement”, but researchers have been foolishly refusing to even try to free from the enslavement. Instead they imply that I am a liar or crazy for trying to expose their flawed prejudice and myths.

P.S: Proof backed by evidence and facts can be found at my ResearchGate account: https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Raju_Chiluvuri4, at my web-site http://real-software-components.com/moredocs.html and empirical evidence can be provided by using Pioneer-soft’s GUI-technologies at: http://Pioneer-soft.com

Best Regards,
Raju S Chiluvuri

Sunday, December 11, 2016

Would you knowingly risk your career, if openly defending or supporting Truth could ruin reputation or career (e.g. might put your promotion at risk)?

Dear Friends,

            If and when counter-evidence brought to his/her notice for any concepts or theories he has been promoting or supporting, isn’t it a moral and ethical obligation of any researcher to address the counter-evidence? Obviously, it is unethical and dishonest to ignore or hide such counter-evidence for any personal gains. Any scientific or engineering discipline is no different from mythology or a cult, if large number of researchers and scientists deliberately ignore or hide such counter-evidence. What is the difference between a scientist and a cult member?

But what would you do, if openly supporting or acknowledging Truth (i.e. counter-evidence) could ruin your reputation? For example, about 450 years ago, even if a researcher were to realize that “the Earth is not static (at the center)” by investigating the counter-evidence, openly supporting the Truth must have destroyed his/her reputation or even faced criminal persecution and punishment. Isn’t it moral obligation of every researcher to fight against such cult culture?

Please keep in the mind that geocentric paradox had been evolved for over 1500 years (due to relying on a 2000 year old flawed belief “the Earth is static”) and was deeply entrenched conventional wisdom 450 years ago, so saying the truth “the Sun is at the center” offended the common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Assume a critical sub-discipline of your scientific or engineering discipline ended up as the geocentric paradox of your scientific or engineering discipline (e.g. by relying on similar flawed belief).

“All truth passes through three stages. First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as being self-evident.”  .. Arthur Schopenhauer.

“all great truths begin as blasphemies”   … George Bernard Shaw

What would you do, if counter-evidence (for concepts or theories you support and rely or use in your work) is brought to your notice? It could ruin your reputation or career (e.g. your promotion might be at risk), If you investigate the counter-evidence and choose to openly support (or acknowledge) the counter-evidence (e.g. recommend others to address the counter-evidence)?

Would you deliberately ignore or hide the counter-evidence to protect your career or reputation, since it is unethical or immoral to ignore or hide the counter-evidence for the geocentric paradox of your discipline?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Sunday, November 27, 2016

Isn’t it unethical or dishonest (if not fraud) to blindly support or promote any theory or concept by ignoring or hiding counter-evidence?


Dear Friends,

The widely accepted ethical obligation and code of conduct among the research communities is: It is unethical or dishonest (if not fraud) to blindly support or promote any theory or concept (in the theoretical foundation for or Body of Knowledge of any scientific discipline) by deliberately ignoring or hiding counter-evidence. It is a moral and ethical obligation for each and every researcher to address each of the demonstrable counter-evidences for any theory or concept he/she is defending or promoting.

The sacred duty of researchers of each of the scientific or technological disciplines is to investigate evidence for eliminating flawed pieces of knowledge such as theories or concepts form the BoK (Body of Knowledge), for example, if and when irrefutable counter-evidence is presented or demonstrated. Ignoring (even due to prejudice) or hiding (by being complacent) such demonstrable counter-evidence is also unethical abdication of the sacred duty.

Any accepted piece or part of knowledge (e.g. theory or concept in the BoK) could cause irreparable damage, if it is fundamentally flawed. For example, each new piece or part of knowledge would likely be corrupted, if it is added by relying on such fundamentally flawed pieces of knowledge. Such corruption spreads overtime, if the BoK is expanded by adding more and more new pieces or parts of knowledge (by relying on such flawed or corrupted pieces of knowledge), which eventually results in altered perception of reality (e.g. paradoxical paradigm). Also, it is a fool’s errand to rely on such flawed or corrupted BoK (by engineering researchers) for making any useful technological invention. It is the sacred duty and moral obligation of each and every researcher to prevent such insidious spread of corruption and dangerous consequences of such BoK having large chunks of corrupted knowledge.

I am sure every scientist in the world must agree that: The biggest and most well-documented mistake in the history of science is “relying on a flawed myth (i.e. the Earth is static) without properly testing and/or validating it”. The “scientific method” was formulated and formalized in the 17th century in the light of pain and suffering endured and insights gained from the first-hand experience of putting the research efforts onto the right path by exposing the error. The “scientific method” was formulated particularly to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost: To prevent researchers form relying on flawed assumptions (e.g. rooted in prejudice, fantasy or myths), which are in contradiction to the objective reality.

Answer to this question is objective reality: Which planet is at the centre of our planetary system? Relying on the wrong answer (the Earth is static at centre) to this question about 2000 years ago diverted mankind’s research efforts (e.g. for understanding the reality by finding rational explanation) into a wrong path. The research efforts persisted in the wrong path for nearly 1500 years without realizing the error. This resulted in the geocentric paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality.

Software researchers repeated the same kind of mistake. Repeating exactly same kind of mistake in the 21st century must be shocking.  Even more shocking is that many software researchers reacting not much different from the ignorant fanatics in the dark ages, who actively supported killing of Giordano Bruno and life imprisonment of Galileo. This kind of mistake is not committed by any other discipline in past 400 years. The researchers of software are ignoring or hiding demonstrable counter-evidence that falsifies their theories or concepts.

The answers to these 2 questions are objective realities (1) what is the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design/development) for physical products and (2) what is the unique nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component in the world. Researches of computer science (software) repeated this kind of cardinal sin nearly 50 years ago by ignoring such objective realities. The myths and assumption at the root of the existing CBSD paradox are in clear contradiction to the objective reality (as the flawed belief/myth “the Earth is static” at the root of geocentric paradox was in clear contradiction to the reality).

The nature and properties of so called software components and CBSD (CBD for software) were blindly defined (based on fantasy, prejudice and wishful thinking) 50 years ago without any consideration to the objective reality. The research efforts have been persisting in the wrong path for 50 years without realizing the error. This resulted in existing CBSD paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality. A huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) accumulated for 50 years comprising tens of thousands of published papers and thousands of books world over backed by epicycles of software as empirical evidence in support of the geocentric paradox of the software.

I have been doing research passionately (ever since I accidentally stumbled onto a fascinating new kind of software components 15 years ago), which lead to the discoveries of nature and reality such as true essence of CBD and essential properties of physical components. My patented inventions are rooted in such discovery of the reality and facts about the components and CBD.

I informed hundreds of respected researchers and leading scientists about the nature and true essence of real-CBD: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/284167768_What_is_true_essence_of_Component_Based_Design and provided demonstrable counter-evidence, which demonstrates that it is possible to invent real-software-components for achieving real-CBD for software (that exposes flawed myths at the root of existing paradox) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292378253_Brief_Introduction_to_COP_Component_Oriented_Programming

The above evidence clearly contradicts the concepts in published papers and books. Unfortunately, many respected researchers have been using so many unsubstantiated dishonest excuses to evade their ethical or moral obligation to address counter-evidence. Promoting any concepts or theories without addressing known counter-evidence is unethical and it is fraud to deliberately hiding such counter-evidence. Even after knowing the possible evidence that prove their concepts and theories are no more than epicycles of software engineering’s geocentric paradox, they continue to promote their concepts and theories by deliberately ignoring the clear counter-evidence.

Empirical falsification is proven scientific method for detecting flawed pieces of knowledge and for eliminating corrupted chunks of knowledge in the BoK. Deliberately ignoring or hiding demonstrable empirical counter-evidence is abdication of moral and ethical obligations. Software researchers committed or repeated a huge mistake. Exposing it leads to software engineering revolution. I can’t believe, researchers in the 21st century repeating one of the biggest mistakes in the history. More shocking is they are reacting no differently from the fanatics in the dark ages. Even after knowing counter evidence, many choose to ignore the evidence to promote the geocentric paradox of software. Initially I thought they were complacent and/or prejudice. But after so many attempts spanning many years, I am beginning to think that they have abdicated their sacred and ethical duty.

How any flawed piece of knowledge could ever be falsified, if the researchers deliberately ignore or hide empirical counter-evidence that can clearly falsify the piece of knowledge? Isn’t it unethical or dishonest (if not fraud) to blindly support or promote any theory or concept by ignoring or hiding counter-evidence? This kind of behavior must not be tolerated by honest and genuine researchers in the interest of scientific and technological progress. Such behavior causes irreparable damage to BoK, by injecting and promoting corruption.

Best Regards,
Raju S Chiluvuri

Friday, November 18, 2016

Isn’t it scandal (if not fraud), if scientists continue to rely on flawed myths which blatantly violate objective reality by ignoring clear warnings?

Dear Friends,

I am sure almost every scientist in the world must agree that: The biggest and most well-documented mistake in the history of science is “relying on a flawed myth (i.e. the Earth is static) without validating it”. The “scientific method” was formalized and formulated in the 17th century particularly to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost by the very researchers and philosophers who had endured pain, suffering and deep insights gained form the first-hand experience of facing violent resistance in exposing such error (or flawed perception of reality).

Software researchers repeated exactly the same kind of mistake. Repeating exactly same kind of mistake in the 21st century must be shocking to anyone.  Even more shocking is that many software researchers reacting not much different from the ignorant fanatics in the dark ages, who actively supported killing of Giordano Bruno and life imprisonment of Galileo. Even the ignorant fanatics in the 16th and early 17th century may be justified by saying that there was no mature proven “scientific method”.

Answer to this question is objective reality: Which planet is at the centre of our planetary system? Relying on the wrong answer (the Earth is static at centre) to this question about 2000 years ago diverted mankind’s research efforts (e.g. for understanding the reality by finding rational explanation) into a wrong path. The research efforts persisted in the wrong path for nearly 1500 years without realizing the error. This resulted in the geocentric paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality.

The “scientific method” was formulated and formalized in the 17th century in the light of pain and suffering endured and insights gained from the first-hand experience of putting the research efforts onto a right path by exposing the error. The “scientific method” was formulated particularly to avoid this kind of mistake at any cost: To prevent researchers form blindly relying on flawed assumptions (e.g. rooted in prejudice, fantasy or myths), which are in clear contradiction to the objective reality.

Researches of computer science (software) repeated this kind of cardinal sin nearly 50 years ago. The answers to these 2 questions are objective realities (1) what is the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design/development) for physical products and (2) what is the unique nature and essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical component in the world. The myths and assumption at the root of the existing CBSD paradox are in clear contradiction to the objective reality (as the flawed belief/myth “the Earth is static” at the root of geocentric paradox was in clear contradiction to the objective reality).

The nature and properties of so called software components and CBSD (CBD for software) were blindly defined (based on fantasy, prejudice and wishful thinking) 50 years ago without any consideration to the objective reality. The research efforts have been persisting in the wrong path for 50 years without realizing the error. This resulted in existing CBSD paradox – a flawed altered perception of reality. A huge BoK (Body of Knowledge) comprising tens of thousands of published papers and thousands of books world over backed by epicycles of software as empirical evidence in support of the geocentric paradox of the software.

No one in the world ever tried to discover objective reality or answers to the above two basic questions, which must be at the root of real-CBSD. Also Most of the researchers are refusing to know the objective reality. Deliberately ignoring the objective reality and facts is widely considered to be unethical and even scientific fraud. Once the facts are in the open or clearly informed, it is a fraud, if any scientist or researcher continue to promote his theories or concepts, by hiding or deliberately ignoring any evidence, facts or objective reality that contradicts his proposed theories or concepts. Any discovery of fact or theory is valid only if it can’t be falsified. So, it is a fraud to promote such fact or theory by hiding or deliberately ignoring contradicting evidence, facts or objective reality.

We discovered the objective reality about the CBD and components backed by evidence and facts. Today it is impossible to deny the objective reality about the CBD and the objective reality about the components. For example, in light of the objective reality (i.e. the Sun is at the centre), isn’t it obvious that geocentric paradox was rooted in fundamentally flawed myth (i.e. the Earth is static at the centre)? Likewise, in light of the objective reality about the CBD and components, it is obvious that the exiting BoK (Body of Knowledge), about so called software components and CBSD paradox, is rooted fundamentally flawed assumptions (e.g. prejudice or myths). Existing definitions and perceptions are in clear contradiction to the objective reality.

If you are working with elephants at a Zoo, when any other animal (e.g. pig or rat) is shown to you, would you insist that it is an elephant? Likewise, no one would ever agree that any of the kind software components known today is a component, if he knows objective reality about the physical components (such as nature and essential properties). If you working with horses for months at a racecourse, when any other animal (e.g. cat or rat) is shown to you, would you insist that it is a horse? Likewise, no one would ever agree that any of the kind CBD for Software known today is real-CBD, if he knows the objective reality about the CBD of physical products (such as nature and true essence).

Computer science was in its infancy 50 years ago and many things were unknown, so software researchers made many assumptions based on (their prejudice and wishful thinking) preconceived notions that computer science was a branch of mathematics and cannot be a real science. This became self-fulfilling prophesy by making computer science a fake science, because software researchers (who are predominantly having background in mathematics) have been working under such flawed preconceived notions and biases of mathematicians (e.g. mathematicians are only trained in “” not trained in the “scientific method”).

The geocentric paradox was defended by using observations such as epicycles and retrograde motions, without realizing they were using illegal circular logic. This is what has been happening in the computer science as well. The researchers are using countless epicycles (e.g. tens of thousands published papers and thousands of books in the existing paradoxical BoK) accumulated for past 50 years for defending the flawed myths at the root of existing CBSD paradox. The experiences and observations of epicycles and retrograde motions were real (i.e. anyone could observe by standing on so called static Earth at the centre) but we know what went wrong.

The same thing has been happening in the software. Without realizing that they are using illegal circular logic, many researchers are using the experiences and observations of the existing CBSD paradox (i.e. altered/flawed perception of reality) to justify the myths at the root of the existing CBSD paradox. Many seminal works such as “mythical man month” or “no silver bullet” further strengthen the conformational bias. The software crisis is real in the existing CBSD paradox as the epicycles were real in the geocentric paradox. It is impossible explain the illusion of such epicycles without going to the root cause. But saying “the Sun at centre” was perceived to be heresy and repugnant 500 years ago. Likewise, questioning the validity of myths at the root of existing CBSD paradox are perceived to be repugnant.

Except researchers of computer science (software), no other 21st century researchers of any discipline refuse to know or deliberately ignore objectivity reality. Unfortunately many software researchers chose to rely on such myths, even when facts and objective reality is demonstrated. Software researchers assumed computer science can’t be a real science, so software researchers put no effort to use “scientific method” for acquiring necessary knowledge essential for addressing many problems such as real-CBSD or Real-Artificial-Intelligence. Such problems can’t be solved without discovering objective reality about components, CBD, neurons or neural networks by using “scientific method”.

Best Regards,

Raju S Chiluvuri

Friday, November 11, 2016

I disparately need help: How can I put research in the right path, which ended up in a wrong path due to mistakes committed 50 years ago?


Dear Friends,

The biggest mistake in the history of science (committed by researchers) was relying on untested and unproven flawed myth (i.e. the Earth is static) for understanding the reality about nature. Exposing this error led to the greatest scientific revolution in the history of mankind, but many great researchers had to endure huge pain and suffering during 16th and early 17th century for exposing this error. Researchers learned many valuable lesson (from to the pain and suffering) that relying on a flawed myth diverts research efforts into a wrong path.

The scientific methods were formulated and formalized (e.g. by major players in the scientific revolution Galileo, Descartes etc.) in the 17th century in the light (i.e. firsthand experience) of pain and suffering endured for exposing the error (at the root of the infamous scientific crisis due to then prevailing geocentric paradox) to prevent the repeat of this kind of error at any cost. This kind of errors side track research efforts into a wrong path, hence must be avoided at any cost: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/305768125_Description_summary_of_one_of_the_biggest_mistakes_researchers_must_avoid_or_never_repeat_at_any_cost

There is no exception to this rule: Research efforts of any scientific discipline ends up in a wrong path, if researchers started relying on a fundamentally flawed assumption/myths. If the research effort are invested for advancing by accumulating scientific or theoretical BoK (Body of Knowledge) in such a wrong path (without detecting the error), the accumulated BoK (e.g. retrograde motions and epicycles) fundamentally alters the perception of reality of researches and resulting in a paradoxical paradigm and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom (which is in clear contradiction to the objective reality).

            For example, the untested and unproven flawed assumption (i.e. the Earth is static) led the research efforts into a wrong path about 2000 years ago. The research effort are invested for advancing or accumulating scientific or theoretical BoK (Body of Knowledge) in such a wrong path (without detecting the error) for about 1500 years that resulted in accumulation of the BoK (e.g. retrograde motions and epicycles), which fundamentally alters the perception of reality of researches and resulting in geocentric paradoxical paradigm and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom (which is in clear contradiction to the objective reality – Existing BoK for heliocentric paradigm). It altered the perception of reality so mush so, in the 16th & early 17th century saying anything that contradicted the myth (i.e. Earth is static) offended commonsense. For example, researchers even felt insulted by the truth and many of them viciously attacked anyone (e.g. Galilio and Giordano Bruno) tried to expose the Truth.

            We all assume this kind of thing could never happen in the 21st century. Unfortunately software researches repeated exactly this kind of mistake 50 years ago, which diverted research efforts into a wrong path. The research effort are invested for advancing or accumulating scientific or theoretical BoK (Body of Knowledge) in such a wrong path (without detecting the error) for about 50 years that resulted in accumulation of the BoK, which fundamentally alters the perception of reality of researches and resulting in existing CBSD paradoxical paradigm and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom (which is in clear contradiction to the objective reality – the real CBD).

Many times more research effort has been invested in accumulating many times more elaborate BoK for existing CBSD paradoxical paradigm during past 50 years than the research effort invested for 1500 years for in accumulating BoK for geocentric paradoxical paradigm. The shocking fact is, the researchers even in the 21st century feel offended by the Truth (if the Truth contradicts their unproven flawed myths) and reacting no differently that the research community in the 16th and early 17th century.

Is it hard to understand that it is wrong to rely on untested and unproven myths for advancing our knowledge and understanding by accumulating and expanding BoK (body of Knowledge)? Is it hard to understand that relying on flawed myth diverts their research efforts into a wrong path, which certainly leads to a paradoxical paradigm, if the BoK were expanded for long enough period without realizing the error?

Is it acceptable, if any researcher in 21st century feel offended by the Truth (that contradict their altered perception of reality) and resort to personal attacks or unethical tactics to humiliate anyone trying to expose the error? The 50 years old assumptions (e.g. unproven prejudice) and definitions (e.g. for so called software components) at the root of software engineering in general and CBSD in particular fundamentally flawed, which diverted research efforts into a wrong path. The software researchers have been accumulating and expanding the BoK in the wrong path for past 50 years (without realizing the error), which resulted in the existing CBSD paradoxical paradigm and altered perception of reality.

There is only one right path for any scientific discipline such as physics, which must go through flawless facts such as “the Sun is at the center”, universal gravity, Newton’s three of motion and many other proven scientific discoveries and accepted theories during past few centuries. If there is any accepted theories have errors and relying on such theory diverts research efforts into a wrong path. Mankind’s scientific and technological progress ends up in a crisis, if the research efforts persistent in the wrong path for long enough (without realizing the error) and accumulated large enough BoK (Body of Knowledge) by relying on the flawed theory (or myths perceived to be facts).

Mankind cannot afford to repeat this kind of mistake again and again. One must endure huge pain and suffering, if he tries to expose such kind of errors (because the respected researchers and scientists even in the 21 century have been reacting no differently than the researchers in the dark ages of science 16th century and early 17th century). I have been enduring humiliating insults, snubbing and personal attacks, if I try hard to expose the mistakes in the theoretical foundation at the root of exiting software engineering paradigm in general and CBSD (Component Based Software Development) in particular.

I cannot give up this noble effort (despite humiliations and suffering inflicted by incompetent or fake scientists), because research efforts of tens of thousands of researchers have been already wasted for past few decades on the geocentric paradox of software engineering and if I fail, next generations of young software researchers continue to waste hard work and researcher efforts for many more decades in pursuit of fool’s errand (i.e. perfecting the retrograde motions and epicycles of the geocentric paradox of software engineering).

This mistake already cost trillions to world economy and would end up costing trillions more, if I fail. It is well known that computers in general and software in particular playing increasingly vital role in every aspect of mankind and particularly in accelerating the research efforts in every discipline of science and technology. Hence solving software crisis (by exposing the error) would have far researching implications in every scientific and technological progress (e.g. in the efforts of each and every researcher in this world sooner than later). So kindly help me in my noble effort, which certainly help progress in your discipline.

Best Regards,

Raju S Chiluvuri

Saturday, November 5, 2016

Why many respected scientist feel it is a fraud/scam or crime to request for proof or question the validity of untested dogmatic myth?



Dear Friends,


About 2000 years ago research community erroneously concluded that “the Earth is static”. The research community relied on such error (i.e. dogmatic myth) for understanding the reality, which diverted their research efforts into a wrong path. These research efforts spanning next 1500 years resulted in evolution of a complex geocentric paradox (e.g. fundamentally altered perception of reality, which is in clear contradiction of the reality) and a deeply entrenched conventional wisdom backed by huge BoK (Body of Knowledge).


Unfortunately saying the Truth “the Sun is at center” 500 years ago perceived to be insulting the common sense and deeply entrenched conventional wisdom. Saying or implying anything that disputed or disagreed with such dogmatic myth “the Earth is static” was perceived to be arrogant, disrespectful or even fraud/scam. Researchers who questioned the myth (e.g. by saying anything that implied that the Earth is moving) were imprisoned or even killed during 16th and early 17th century (now we call this period Dark Ages of Science).


It is impossible to put research efforts onto the right path without exposing this error. Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if the research efforts were not put on the right path by exposing the error. How is it possible to put the research efforts on the right path, if the research community perceives that it is a scam/fraud to say any thing that disputes or disagrees with such dogmatic myth? Of course, many researches and scientists would resort to humiliating insults and personal attacks against anyone, if he/she is doing something that is perceived to be fraud/scam. Computer Science (Software) is still in the dark ages of science, because respected scientists and researchers of computer science (software) learned nothing from such painful history during the dark ages of science.


Unfortunately, software researchers 50 years ago erroneously concluded that the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design/Development) for software is building each product by assembling reusable and/or standardized software components from 3rd party component vendors. They used following analogy to summarize the nature and true essence of CBD: The hardware designers design and build computers by assembling reusable (or COTS – Commercially off the Shelf) components from 3rd party component venders. Such reusable software parts were even referred to as Software-ICs by many respected researchers and thought leaders.


The researchers relied on such error for achieving equivalent CBD by inventing such so called software components, which diverted their research efforts into a wrong path. Investing research efforts for past 50 years in a wrong path resulted in evolution of a complex software engineering paradox (e.g. fundamentally altered perception of reality, which is in clear contradiction of the reality we know in the physical world such as CBD of physical products). Today research community refusing to explore any other path, if the proposed path is in contradiction to their flawed perception of reality and their dogmatic myths. In fact, many researchers today even perceive such proposal to be a fraud/scam.


Unfortunately respected researchers of 21st century are reacting no differently then the researchers in the dark ages of science. Today it is perceived to be arrogant, repugnant or even fraud/scam to say anything that is in contradistinction to their altered perception of reality and dogmatic myths (e.g. large reusable software parts are components, and using such so called software components is CBD). But it is impossible to put research efforts on the right path without exposing the myths. No meaningful progress is possible for achieving real CBD until the research efforts are put on the right path by exposing the error.


The reality and facts about real-CBD, such as implementing over 90% of the features and functionality is custom replaceable components. – This is clear contradiction to the retrograde motions and epicycles of deeply entrenched conventional wisdom and CBD paradox exists today. It is impossible to achieve gestalt-shift into new paradigm without contradicting the retrograde motions and epicycles of deeply entrenched conventional wisdom of the existing CBSD paradox. But any attempt to expose the error is perceived to be scam/fraud. Today no one even know what the reality is, and consider that it is fraud/scam, if any one requests them for an opportunity to provide proof for the Reality, since the reality disagrees (e.g. is in clear contradiction) with the altered perception of reality (filed with the retrograde motions and epicycles of software).


How can I expose flawed dogmatic myths at the root of Body of Knowledge for computer science (software) without being perceived to be a scam/fraud?


Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri

Friday, October 21, 2016

Isn’t it scandal (if not fraud), if scientists feel repugnant when requested to not violate the “scientific method” for acquire theoretical knowledge?

Dear Friends,

Isn’t it fraud (if not crime) against scientific and technological progress, if scientists/researchers blatantly violate well established and proven “scientific method”  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method to acquire and include new knowledge in the theoretical foundation of any discipline for expanding its BoK (Body of Knowledge). Certain basic concepts in the BoK for software are nothing more than fiction rooted in wishful thinking. Relying on such flawed concepts or knowledge for technological advancement is violation of basic logic and even common sense.

The purpose of scientific research is discovering new pieces of knowledge (e.g. facts, concepts or theories that can’t be falsified by using existing knowledge) for expanding the boundaries of human knowledge by adding the new knowledge to the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation for the scientific discipline). Each piece of knowledge in the BoK must be supported by falsifiable proof (but impossible to falsify using exciting evidence or knowledge); and must be removed from the BoK, if and when new evidence can falsify the proof. The purpose of engineering or technological research is relying on the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation acquired by using scientific method) for either inventing new things or innovation for improving existing inventions).

Any knowledge added to the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation) by violating the scientific method might be invalid and corrupted. Any new pieces of knowledge gained by relying such invalid or corrupted knowledge will be corrupted. Such BoK (theoretical foundation) would insidiously dangerous for engineering research. It is impossible to make any useful invention or innovation by relying on such corrupted knowledge. Most inventions are made by rely on multiple pieces of knowledge in the BoK. It is very unlikely for any technological research to be successful, even if some of the pieces of knowledge is corrupted. For example, is it possible to invent computer chips, by being clueless about the nature of electrons? Software researchers trying to invent CBD for software by being clueless about natures/properties of the CBD and components.

How progress of any scientific discipline research derailed (ends up in crisis): If research community makes a mistake, relying on the mistake diverts the research efforts into a wrong path. This was exactly what had happened in case of geocentric paradigm for about 1500 years, when researchers made a mistake by assuming that the Earth is static 2000 years ago. Exactly similar mistake was repeated nearly 50 years ago by researchers of computers science (software): By defining that any reusable and/or standardized software parts are components for software products (without giving any consideration to reality/fact, but based on wishful thinking/fiction). The researchers also defined that the objective of the CBSD (Component Based Design for Software) is building software by assembling such fake components.

The assumption made 2000 years ago that “the Earth is static” was an error. Relying on the error led research efforts in a wrong path for next 1500 years. This resulted in fundamentally altered perception reality, so much so, the Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre) was perceived to be repugnant/heresy. The researchers in 17th century had to make huge sacrifices to expose this error. To prove that it was an error, they had to find Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre) and prove the Truth for putting the research efforts in the right path for expanding the scientific knowledge by overcoming the scientific crisis. Copernicus discovered that “the Sun is at the centre”, which eventual proven (e.g. by Kepler, Galileo and Newton) to be a fact. Exposing the Truth (i.e. the Sun is at centre, which initially perceived to be repugnant/heresy) put the research efforts in the right path, which resulted in the greatest scientific revolution in the history.

Mankind’s scientific knowledge would still be in crisis, if that error were not yet exposed. The experience and suffering endured by 17th century scientists/researchers to expose the error to overcome the scientific crisis helped them formalize and formulate “scientific method”, particularly to avoid similar kind of foolish mistake (i.e. relying on unproven assumptions that are rooted in myths or wishful thinking). Except computer science, no other modern scientific discipline violated the “scientific method”.

Except the researchers of computer science, so far no other scientific discipline repeated similar kind of foolish error. The errors are: (1) Assumption made nearly 50 years ago that, reusable and/or standardized software parts are components (which is in clear contradiction to reality/fact we know about physical components – Most physical components are custom designed to meet unique needs of its target product) and (2) blindly defining CBSD (CBD for Software) is building software by assembling such fake components. Such untested errors led the research efforts in a wrong path and resulted in fundamentally altered perception of reality (and infamous software crisis), so much so, our discoveries of Truth perceived to be heresy and repugnant.

I have been enduring humiliating insults, snubs and personal attacks, if I try to expose this error by using Truth: I discovered Truth for putting the research efforts in the right path for expanding the scientific knowledge and for overcoming the scientific crisis. I used the “scientific method” to discover that the reality for CBD of any given product: The reality for CBD can be broadly summarized as implementing about 90% of the features and functionality in un-pluggable/re-pluggable components, which are custom designed to satisfy unique need of the given product, where the replaceable component are optimal sized parts that can be easily un-pluggable (e.g. for redesign it individually) and re-pluggable (e.g. after testing it individually outside the product).

I realized that, I must invent right kind of software component that are capable of enabling real-COP (Component Oriented Programming) for achieving real CBSD (i.e. CBD for Software Products), where real CBSD is implementing over 90% of the features and functionality (i.e. code) in replaceable software components, which can be easily un-plugged (e.g. for redesign it individually free from spaghetti code) and re-plugged (e.g. after testing it individually outside the product). I used “scientific method” to discover the essential properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every physically component in the world. This knowledge of reality (acquired by using “scientific method”) allowed me to experiment for many years to invent real software components (having the necessary essential properties) for achieving real-CBSD.

Anyone can make these discoveries on their own by employing “scientific methods”. Unfortunately, most experts feel, it is repugnant, if I request them to use “scientific methods” for discovering the Truth/facts by investigating the objective reality about the nature and essence of the CBD of physical products and nature and properties that are essential for physical components to achieve real CBD. Is it heresy or repugnant: Asking to gain valid knowledge by using proven “scientific methods”?

What is real Science? What are the basic requirement for any discipline to be a real science? Ans: Using “scientific methods” for investigating evidence and/or conduct experiments to discover new pieces or parts of knowledge (i.e. facts, concepts or theories that can’t be falsified) for expanding the BoK. How any scientific discipline could end-up a fake science? Obvious answer is: Expanding its BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation) by adding more and more new pieces or parts of knowledge created by violating the “scientific method”. The “scientific method” requires that, each piece of knowledge added to the BoK must be supported by a falsifiable proof (but impossible to falsify by using existing knowledge); and the piece of the knowledge must be deleted from the BoK, if and when new evidence surfaces that can falsify the proof.

Computer Science has been adding invalid or corrupted knowledge by violating the “scientific methods”. Many parts of the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation for software) were never supported by any proof and can be easily falsified. Hence computer science ended up being a fake science. How is it possible to transform a fake science into a real science? Just follow the “scientific methods” to find and falsify pieces or parts of knowledge created by violating the basic “scientific methods” and replace each of them with pieces or parts of knowledge created by employing “scientific methods” (if and when possible). Also remove each piece of the knowledge (that can’t be replaced), if it is not possible to support by irrefutable proof and evidence.

How any scientific discipline ends up in a crisis/paradox: If research community makes a mistake, relying on the mistake diverts the research efforts into a wrong path. No exception to this simple rule. This was exactly what happened in case of geocentric paradox. This was exactly what happened 50 years ago, when scientists set the goal for CBSE is building applications by assembling reusable components. Isn’t it obvious that the assumption is flawed? This assumption was never even tested. The 17th century researchers (e.g. Galileo and Descartes) formulated the scientific method to prevent this kind of error at any cost: Investing research efforts by blindly relying on unproven and untested myths for expanding the BoK. Except software researchers, no one else committed this kind of monumental mistake since 17th century.

The truth (The Sun is at centre) perceived to be repugnant/heresy in the dark ages. Scientists explained the persecution of Truth by saying: It was dark ages for science and insisting that we learned valuable lessons from the painful experience, and insist that great philosophers of 17th century formalized “Scientific Method” for preventing such mistake again, which has been evolving ever since and matured. What excuse software scientist could find to explain repeat of exactly similar kind of mistake in the 21st century, except admitting gross negligence, pure incompetence, scandalous or even fraud? Are we still in the dark age for science? I can’t understand why scientists in the 21st century consider that it is heresy and/or repugnant (resorting to humiliating snubbing or personal attacks), when requested to use “scientific method” to investigate the objective reality to discover facts/Truth?

There is no better tool than “scientific method” to investigate the objective reality for discovering facts/Truth? No real scientist can refute these scientific methods, even if they perceive our discoveries to be repugnant initially. Any researcher denies these facts and scientific method is certainly incompetent and may be even a fraud. Except software researchers, no other scientist or scientific discipline violate scientific method knowingly and so blatantly/foolishly. Many software researchers blindly insist that it is impossible to fallow scientific method. They are absolutely wrong. We made our revolutionary discoveries of Truth/facts by strictly following the scientific method. We are only asking the software researchers to strictly follow the scientific method, just like researchers of any other discipline in the world. Isn’t it a shame and scandal, if any scientist feels that, asking him to not violate the proven scientific method is repugnant? Our scientific discoveries will transform computer science into a real science and our inventions transform software engineering into real engineering.

Toady computer science is a fake science because it has been blatantly violating scientific method. No discipline can be a real science, if it has been acquiring knowledge (for expanding its BoK) by violating scientific method. There are no exceptions to this universal rule. The theoretical foundation (i.e. BoK) created by researchers of computers science for inventing CBSD (or AI) can’t be an exception to this rule. The knowledge created and added to the BoK (i.e. theoretical foundation) by violating scientific methods are invalid. No useful technological inventions can be made by relying on such invalid or corrupted knowledge.

The discovery that “the Sun is at the centre” was perceived to be repugnant. Mankind still would be in the dark ages, if that error were not yet exposed. It is impossible to make any meaningful progress, if the BoK was filled with such corrupted knowledge. Today my discoveries (made by strictly following scientific process) are perceived to be repugnant. But software researchers and industry (i) have no choice but to follow the scientific method for acquiring necessary knowledge (that is essential for addressing many unsolved problems in software) and (ii) must rely only on the discoveries made by strictly following the scientific methods.

Best Regards,
Raju Chiluvuri

Wednesday, October 5, 2016

How to expose a shocking scandal that has been plaguing computer science?


Dear Friends,

Summary of the Scandal: It is impossible to solve certain huge unsolved computer science (software) problems without expanding the theoretical foundation by acquiring certain kind of missing pieces of essential knowledge. Example for unsolved problems include real-CBD (Component Based Design) or real-AI (Artificial Intelligence). Certain kind of missing pieces of essential knowledge (to address certain unsolved problems) can only be acquired by using scientific methods. Software researchers have been insisting that computer science is a branch/sub-domain of mathematics and refusing to use any other methods (except mathematics) for acquiring knowledge for expanding the theoretical foundation in order to facilitate software inventions for solving any unsolved problems.

Isn't common sense: If one needs to draw a picture of something, for example XYZ, doesn't he at least try to know what is XYZ and how does XYZ look like? For example, how could anyone draw a picture (or painting) of an elephant, without ever even seeing or without having basic knowing, whether the elephant is a tree, animal, bird or a landmark? If one needs to paint (or emulate) anything, shouldn't he try to know what it is and how it works or looks like? For example, a painter could say whether he can pain XYZ or not, only after seeing XYZ. The software researchers have no clue what is XYZ (e.g. real CBD), but insist it is impossible to invent XYZ (e.g. real-CBD for software).  

Without ever even trying, how can anyone insist that knowledge acquired by using scientific methods is useless for addressing such unsolved problems? Isn’t it (i.e. refusing to use scientific methods for gaining such essential knowledge) shocking and scandalous. How to compel researchers of computers science to use proven scientific methods for acquiring knowledge essential for addressing unsolved problems? I can prove that it is a trivial task to invent solutions for few unsolved problems, if such missing pieces of knowledge is acquired by using scientific methods.

Kindly allow me to illustrate this by using an example: For example, the infamous software crisis is a huge problem, which could have been solved decades ago, if researchers of computer science used scientific methods for gaining knowledge about things such as the nature and true essence of CBD (Component Based Design) of physical products and nature and essential properties of physical components.

The reason for the software crisis is infamous spaghetti code. Software crisis can be solved by eliminating such spaghetti code. The true essence of the CBD is eliminating spaghetti code. Except design and development of software products, no other product in the world is affected by the spaghetti code, because the designers of physical products employ true CBD, which uses only true components. For example, particularly design & development of new one-of-a-kind products such as experimental spacecraft or fully tested pre-production working models of next generation jet-fighters.

The essential properties of physical components imply the set of properties uniquely and universally shared by each and every known physical functional component. If the essential properties are discovered (by using proven scientific methods), it is a trivial task to invent real-software-components having the essential properties, where the real-software-components are capable of achieving real CBSD (CBD for software), where real-CBSD can eliminate software crisis by eliminating the spaghetti code. I invented this and I can provide irrefutable proof backed by evidence.

This proves that it is not only possible to use scientific methods to gain essential missing parts of knowledge but also such missing knowledge is essential for inventing solutions for each of the outstanding and unsolved problems of software. Such missing knowledge can only be acquired by using scientific methods. But software researchers refusing to use scientific methods by employing frivolous arguments such as computer science can’t use scientific methods for gaining knowledge for theoretical foundation, because computer science is a branch of mathematics (and not a branch of science).

The scientific methods can be used in similar manner for gaining essential pieces/parts of missing knowledge (to expand theoretical foundation) for addressing other unsolved problems such as real machine intelligence by emulating the brains of many kinds of animals and eventually human brain: Please see the number of circuits on an integrated circuits today (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor_count) and compare that to number of neurons in the brains of many kinds of animals: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_animals_by_number_of_neurons.

Even a honey-bee can manoeuvre many times better than most advanced fighter-jets in the world. We might build emulators for brains of many kinds of animals (as chip designers build each ASIC to address unique problem). We might have had the capability to emulate many kinds of such small insect or even animal intelligence and natural instincts for years, if we used scientific methods for acquiring necessary pieces/parts of knowledge such as discovering the nature, properties and functioning of neurons and neural networks. Mathematical methods are not designed and incapable of gaining such missing pieces/parts of knowledge about nature and properties of physical things and processes/phenomena. On the other hand, scientific methods are designed and have proven track record for acquiring such knowledge.

The research effort for discovering necessary pieces of knowledge for inventing real-software-components for achieving real-CBSD, needed no costly resources, equipment or diverse expertise (except common sense, access to internet and rational reasoning). Of course, continuous critique of many experts prevented my research path from deviating too far away from the reality. I am being a software engineer since 1988, I needed no other costly resources, equipment or diverse expertise for investigating nature and properties of physical components/CBD for acquiring necessary BoK (Body of Knowledge) for inventing real software components.

I have made such simple discoveries for accumulating missing pieces/parts of Knowledge by using scientific methods. An elaborate documentation for the BoK for real-CBSD is openly provided in my web-site http://real-software-components.com and in my ResearchGate account. We (i.e. http://pioneer-soft.com) built first and only GUI-platform in the world for building real-software-components to help even junior Java developers to practice real-COP (Component Oriented Programming) paradigm for achieving real-CBD for software. It provides irrefutable empirical evidence to prove that knowledge acquired using scientific methods can solve unsolved problems.

I don’t have the resources or expertise to make necessary observations and conduct experiments for investigating nature, functioning and properties of neurons and neural networks to invent natural or general intelligence (or real AI - Artificial Intelligence). It requires a team having diverse skills and expensive equipment for conducting experiments. But I am sure thousands of software companies and government research organizations around the world have the necessary resourced for assembling such teams having necessary expertise and recourses to do research for acquiring necessary BoK for inventing real-AI (by using scientific methods).

To invent solutions for solving such outstanding problems, it is essential for the researchers of computer science to acquire knowledge by using scientific methods. Certain problems (e.g. real-CBSD, which I already invented; or real-AI, which I don’t have resources to address) can never be invented without filling many missing pieces of essential knowledge, which can only be acquired by using scientific methods. But the community of software researchers have been stubbornly refusing to use scientific methods (having proven track record) to gain missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for makings such inventions. Isn’t it foolishness, if not a fraud?

Many software researchers are using baseless excuse such as computer science is a branch/sub-domain of mathematics (so it is not and/or can’t be a branch of science) to evade using scientific methods (having proven track record for acquiring such missing pieces/parts of knowledge essential for making such inventions): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/306078165_Computer_Science_Software_Must_be_Considered_as_an_Independent_Discipline_Computer_Science_Software_must_not_be_Treated_as_a_Sub-Domain_or_Subset_of_Mathematics

Please kindly remember this: Any real truth (e.g. discovery of objective reality/fact for scientific or engineering BoK) can withstand even the most rigorous validation and prevail. In fact, any real discovery of Truth/reality would shine brighter and brighter when put under bright lights of rigorous scrutiny or validation. But how such truth/reality can prevail if every respected researcher tries to cover-up by using every possible excuse to hide Truth/reality in dark (by refusing to see the evidence)?

How can we emulate real CBD or neural networks without acquiring BoK such as nature, properties and description for functioning (or phenomena) of such system? Mathematics is incapable of providing such knowledge. Such knowledge can be acquired only by using scientific methods. No painter can paint XYZ (i.e. rea-CBD), if he has no clues how XYZ (or real-CBD) looks like. Today no software expert can provide accurate summary or realistic description for real CBD. Isn’t a scandal?

Best Regards,

Raju Chiluvuri