I don't need to win the case. I juts need to expose a basic obvious flaw in computer science. Once the flaws are noticed, it can be easily fixed. The grant organizations not taking my discoveries seriously, since they can't see the real working examples. I no longer need any grant, if I can expose errors by making experts beginning to notice that the flaws are credible.
I can't afford to build complex tools to show proof. I need funds of about 3 million to do it in the USA. I need about 1.5 million if I do it in cheap countries such as India or China.
The grant reviewers make decision only based on written documents and references, and would not see any physical evidence. The physical evidence can exposes flaws in the deeply entrenched basic aspects. Since the physical discoveries contradicting all the basic knowledge and conventional wisdom in our field, I cannot expose the flaws without credible demonstration of the physical evidence. Also most research papers are based on the flawed basic aspects, they contradict our proposal.
It is easy to propose any of the technological advancement, as long as it won't question flaws in the basic aspects of the field. In fact, it is well proven (e.g. Ref. to book "The Structure of Scientific Revolution" by Dr Kuhn) that no one else has proved a discovery that can expose flaws in the basic concepts of any field, without physical evidence. So I was put at unfair position.
Dr. Kuhn's book "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" clearly illustrates that a 'paradigm shift' occurs due to changes in basic assumptions within then ruling theory of science (i.e. by exposing errors in basic tenets universally accepted as truths and having no intellectual decent). Although new paradigms were introduced in software (e.g. introduction of GUI by Apple in 80s and evolution of Internet in 90s by Netscape browser), they only extended existing paradigms. Hence not all new paradigms are true paradigm shifts. A new paradigm can be introduced without invalidating basic tenets of existing paradigm, so such new paradigms are 'commensurable'. But a true Kuhnian paradigm shift is 'incommensurable', because it not only exposes errors in basic tenets (e.g. existing paradigm's concepts or conventional wisdom etc.) but also replaces them by simple more accurate once (that often needs a complex 'gestalts shift'). Software industry or computer science never experienced such a paradigm shift that invalidated existing widely accepted doctrine (believed to be pure truth).
For example, let me give you an analogy. About 400 years ago world believed earth is at the center of the universe, which was exposed at huge personal cost to Galileo and Bruno. Without this discovery science cannot advance. For example, with out Kepler's laws Newton must not have invented his laws and gravitation etc.
Modern computer sciences have comparable flaws in the basic concepts. Exposing them would unleash a new revolution computer industry never seen.
Even though I loose, I could put up a credible fight, so that the experts would pay attention. They could easily see the flaws, since they can't ignore my evidence (which they are ignoring now, because it contradicts today's conventional wisdom) and it is impossible to defend the flaws against the irrefutable physical evidence.
I don't need to win the case if I could I get the attention of the experts and researchers to start exploring the flaws (which they now believe pure truths).
P.S: I spent many years to make sure that I am absolutely sure that I am right, but many of the legal experts agree that this cannot guarantee the favorable outcome.
I request legal experts to answer this question: Can the government organization counter sue me, if I lose. I can't afford a bankruptcy now.
Thanks,
John
