| |
|
The real cold hard facts of any real science or technology
|
|
|
It is beyond my imagination that why smart people having so much trouble understanding the simple facts: It is essential to discover the innate nature and essential aspects of the real components and real CBD respectively for inventing real-software-components and real CBSD (or CBD for software).
|
|
|
Please kindly allow me to illustrate this by using simple analogies: Could the semiconductors and electronic industry be created and evolved, if scientists refuse to discover the nature and essential aspects of the electrons such as how they behave in certain conditions (e.g. in semiconductor material)? Could the fiber optic networks even emerge, if scientists refuse to discover the nature and essential aspects of light such as behavior of light (e.g. in glass and fiber strands or wires)? How could the software scientists and researchers expect to invent real-components and real CBSD (CBD for software) by ignoring and refusing to know the intrinsic nature and essential aspects of the physical component and CBD of physical products?
|
|
|
Isn’t it essential to discover the essential properties and nature of very basic building blocks such as electrons, light or real-software-components for very existence and evolution of respective fields? How could any one insist that it is impossible to invent such real-software-components, by being clueless & never having tried to discover basic nature and essential properties of physical functional components and also being clueless about essential process and mechanisms of CBD for physical products (e.g. cars, computers or cell-phones)?
|
|
|
Please kindly understand that these are not sound bytes or punch lines, but cold hard facts of any real science or technology. For example, even today Intel or IBM could make billions by discovering and patenting unknown useful aspects related to the behavior of electrons in the semiconductor material (even if the inventions increase efficiency by 10% to 15%, with no tradeoff and at no additional cost). Likewise, having exclusive access to such inventions resulting from a new discovery of unknown useful aspects related to the behavior of light in fiber optic networks could help Cisco or Brocade make billions.
|
|
|
Unfortunately, we need to invent real-software-components and real-CBSD before thinking about improving them? If any one thinks, the software industry already invented real-software-components, please explain to me the essential properties or innate nature of real components. Please don’t tell me large reusable parts are components. For example, parts like paint, cement, TMT-steel or expensive alloys must be ideal components, because they are widely reused in multiple products. But irrefutable fact is, it is not necessary that even a single large component in the component-hierarchy (i.e. CBD-structure) of any complex product must be reusable or have any property erroneously attributed to the so called software components exist today.
|
|
|
Please let me define what is meant by an “essential property” of the components. No physical part can be a component without having the “essential property”. Any physical component ceases to be a component as soon as it looses any one of the essential properties. In the light of this definition, the objective is to discover the essential properties that are uniquely and universally shared by each and every physical functional component in the world. This helps us discover innate nature and essential aspects of the real physical components. Likewise it is possible to discover the innate nature and essential aspects of the real CBD for physical products.
|
|
|
It is not complicated to discover the innate nature and essential aspects of the CBD for physical products, which would be immensely helpful for discovering the more complex innate nature and essential aspects of the real physical components. Once discovering innate nature and essential aspects of the real physical components and real CBD for physical products it is not very complex to invent real-software-components that are equivalent to the physical functional components (i.e. by having the essential properties) and capable of achieving real CBSD (i.e. CBD for software), which is logically equivalent to the CBD of physical products for offering comparable benefits.
|
|
|
The existing component-based software engineering paradigm has no basic in reality and not supported by fact and eludes rational reasoning.
This can be proved to real scientists and researchers who are competent and has
real intellectual curiosity. Unfortunately many software scientists willfully blind to reality and
obvious contradictions. It is extremely hard to deal with two world views evolved from two opposing axiomatic assumptions or postulations.
|
|
|
For example, the FIG-1 and FIG-2 shows mankind’s view of the
planetary orbits 500 years ago. This model was evolved from axiomatic assumption that the Earth is static at the center. The scientists have been working hard with passion to study and accumulate knowledge for centuries about the placatory orbits. They have no doubt about the fact that the Earth is static, since not only they have been living on the static Earth al their lives but also confirmed by the knowledge passed on to them from many generations before them.
|
|
|
The FIG-4
shows the mankind’s current view of the placatory orbits that evolved from postulation that the Sun is at the center. If an ordinary engineer goes back in time to 15th century, how could he explain and defend his world view (without mentioning Gravity or Newton’s laws of motion)? They think it is crazy that the Earth is moving at a speed of 18 miles/sec. They would think he is crazy, if he says that no planet moves in epicycles or has retrograde-motion, since they have been studying epicycles or has retrograde-motion all their lives standing on the static Earth.
|
|
|
Unfortunately the attention span of most of the so called researchers is few minutes. They want irrefutable proof in minutes without making a single statement that contradicts their world view based on existing paradigm that has been evolved for decades based on a baseless axiomatic assumption. They
are suspicious to begin with and any statement that contradicts an epicycle or retrograde motion of existing paradigm is enough to conclude that I am either crazy or
it might be scam.
|
|
|
If one thinks I am crazy, he either try to ignore/evade or he refuses to
listen and start lecturing (e.g. Try to prove Geocentric-model by using epicycles
and retrograde-motions). That kind of ignoring/evading is much better than snubs or insults from a person who thinks
it is a scam. Is it crazy or a scam, if I humbly request to discover the Truth (i.e. about innate nature of essential aspects of real components and CBD) on their own, especially since discovering truths is the basic sacred duty shared by each and every real scientist or researcher.
|
|
|
Is it too much to expect each scientist or researcher to do his basic duty:
Pursuing absolute Truths (without relying on myths). It is extremely frustrating to deal with fake scientists or researchers who abdicated their sacred duty.
They rely on unsubstantiated myths, assumptions to discredit simple facts and refuse to defend such myths by using baseless excuses.
No science can be real science without irrefutable proof or valid substantiation
for each of the basic concepts and root postulations.
|
|
|
The biggest problem with so called researchers is their attention span and in many cases it is coupled with their feeling of
superiority or even arrogance. If he is really so superior, why can’t he defend his
beliefs or statements based on reasoning or facts. Instead of offering silly excuses, why can’t he find a flaw in facts or
reasoning provided openly in this website? It is impossible to deal with so called researchers, whose attention span is less than a minute and want irrefutable proof in minutes
(with a pre-condition that it must not contradict his favorite epicycle or retrograde motion of existing paradigm).
|
|
|
Many of the so called researchers don’t want facts, but they are only looking for re-confirmation and improvements to the epicycle or retrograde motion of existing paradigm. In their perception and world view, the epicycle or retrograde motion are irrefutable facts,
which must not be contradicted. They feel, any one contradicting his favorite epicycle or retrograde motion is a fool.
|
|
|
Researchers having low attention span can only grasp incremental improvements to the concepts they already know, but can’t grasp new concepts that rely on newly
discovered facts and reasoning. It requires longer attention span, open mind and intellectual curiosity to comprehend a big picture, which comprising an ecosystem of interdependent concepts evolved from newly discovered facts.
|
| |
