User talk:49.206.33.142

February 2016
Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to Computer science, appears to have been inappropriate, and has been reverted. Please feel free to use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Thank you. - Please read the instructions regarding external links --David Biddulph (talk) 04:08, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Mr. David, Computer science is not real science because it violated basic scientific principles. I added links that describes basic well established scientific principles, proven processes and rules. No real science can violate such processes and principles. Software researchers blatantly violated such rules and principles.

No one can rely on untested and unproven assumptions for advancing scientific knowledge. Existing computer science and software engineering paradigm evolved from such baseless assumptions made 50 years ago. The definitions for so called software components and CBD for software made out of thin air without any basis in reality (in fact, in clear contradiction to the reality).

It is gross violation of scientific process and principles by relying on such untested and unproven assumptions (as if they are self-evident Truths that needs no validations), without documenting them for future generation to validate as and when scientific and technological knowledge advances sufficiently.

Anyone can remove this external link, if he can show who has validated these definitions. Until such proof exists, it is a violation of scientific principles to rely on them to advance our scientific knowledge. Even basic sciences were not real sciences until flawed assumption at the root of geocentric paradigm was exposed. Computer science can’t be real science, if it violated such basic principles and processes.

Scientific Research is nothing but pursuit of absolute truths, for example, to discover new facts for expanding boundaries of mankind’s knowledge. It is abdication of this sacred duty to violate these basic principles to maintain paradox.

Arguing and shouting that computer science is real science can’t make it real science. Computer science can become real science only when it conform to proven principles and processes. Until accurate and proved definitions for software components are discovered, all the concepts for CBD for software are no more than epicycles.

These links pointing out obvious violations of well-established scientific processes. Until one can show evidence that the definitions are well tested and scientific facts, my links must be kept in the external links.

No one in the world can name, who discovered that “the Earth is static” and who proved it. Even school kid knows who discovered “the Sun is at the centre”. The proof is well documented: http://www.real-software-components.com/forum_blogs/BriefSummaryOfTruths.html#Chronology

Can any one name who discovered the nature and definitions for physical functional components? Anyone ever proved the definitions? Any one in computer science proved that it is impossible to invent software components satisfying such definitions (i.e. reality and facts about the physical functional components)? No one knows. Every one blindly following assumptions made 50 years ago. Why is it any different from philosophers blindly following the assumptions (the Earth is static) made 2000 years ago?

The goal of the links is not define nature of physical components, but to expose violation of scientific proves by software researchers.

Mr. David, it is a clear prejudice and discrimination to accept baseless argument that Computer science is Real Science (just because Dr. Denning is a famous professor) but denying irrefutable evidence that exposes blatant violation of scientific principles. Kindly remember that, most such discoveries of hidden error are made by outsiders by accident. The establishment can’t see such errors of deeply entrenched paradigm. For example, Einstein was a clerk in patent office when is made his famous discoveries. Errors in deeply entrenched paradigm can’t be discovered by planning but by accident by an out sider (who are not yet indoctrinated into the existing paradigm). I have immense respect for because Dr. Denning, but I have irrefutable proof that he is wrong.