In fact, a cursory search shows the opposite.
The MCAS is exactly the cause of the issues and was the software that caused the crashes because it behaved unexpectedly to the pilots. The whole reason why Boeing leaned on software was because their sales pitch was that this new plane was essentially the same as a 737 so it didn't need any extra training. But this was false. They needed this MCAS because the mechanics of flying the plane were vastly different, I think because of the location of the engines, etc. That's the whole issue, where Boeing lied to the FAA and sold the 737MAX as a drop-in replacement for the 737 when it really wasn't. So if you don't even know this then you need to start from scratch and do your own research.
I suggest you need to continue doing your own research on when MCAS comes into play and why. Especially if you're going to condescend to others.
> These planes cannot fly without a computer adjusting them to keep the balance.
I haven't seen anything suggesting that. If MCAS was completely ripped out of the computers, these planes still can be flown, right? The pilots would need to be trained on the differing characteristics, but it isn't inherently unstable like some military jets are.
The planes could not legally fly without MCAS, because they fail a required stick force linearity certification requirement. (FAR 25.173)
From what I understand, MCAS functions to emulate the similar flight experience of prior 737 aircraft to minimize pilot retraining..l
They ended up with a problem where bad inputs to the MCAS system could only be countered by disabling the electric trim motors. Once you did that the only way to fix the trim was via a manual wheel which didn't have enough mechanical advantage when the elevators were loaded. That itself was a festering problem carried forward from the original design.
First I have heard of this issue, though I haven't been following it closely. Citation, please?