Notices
Results 1 to 39 of 39

Thread: I am looking for a theoretical physicist.....will pay

  1. #1 I am looking for a theoretical physicist.....will pay 
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Hi,

    I am looking for a quote to hire the services of a theoretical physicist to review a 370 manuscript over the period of one month, 15 days to get through the manuscript properly, the rest Q and A.

    Please use the PM button for your more personal tenders....in US dollar.

    Make it an auction, if you will.....


    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Could I evaluate too? Free ofcourse!


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Yes. Of course.

    The reason why I seek a theoretical physicst at a charged rate is because that it is required "for the record", an actual documented investigation according to all the protocols of normal/contemporary tech-development.

    If you would like to be a part of that record, make an offer, otherwise be an anonymous analyst.

    Basically, someone will be paid, and be a part of the official record of the theory, at a priced deemed competitive by the science industry.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Page 11. "He's was a poet" I understand that must be australian for:
    "He was a poet" or it was just a small spelling error, yet you should change it before the authorized theoreticall scientist arrives.

    Will continue helping you.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Page 12 "OBSERVOR" should be "OBSERVER"

    Page 13, you claim that you can predict the future if you only knew exactly how the universe worked, but would take to much computer power therefor invalid.

    Page 13: "What then can be accepted that is POSSIBLE" Please reformulate.
    Suggestions;
    as being possible,
    to be possible,
    as possible.

    Just read page 16, is the pdf on your homesite the thing i should review or not?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    I presented what you are reading to a girl at work and she made the same criticisms.

    A poet, like newton, well, the "apple".........use your imagination. I mean, I think he had a hard time trying to get his ideas acrosss to people, so then he used the "apple" as a biblical meaphor for wisdom, basically saying that the apple adam and even allegedly took hit him on the head.............and then he thought of cause and effect in regard to gravity.

    The book is long enough..........I shouldn't have to think that you have also studied the classics to such a degree. Just get to the body of the work and ignore all spelling corrections. If you get to the "about the author" page at the end, you will realize that you can spell check the manuscript yourself and then call it your own........because if you want to call it your own, spell check it......don't worry about the real meat of the theory.

    The manuscript is intelligently designed, or should I say, "structured" with effective weaknesses (Art of War).

    I know someone will say "please explain" (Art of War reference).

    OK: in the Art of War if you do not leave a way in or out for your enemy on the field of battle, they will fight to the death. The introduction to my book, and the end, is the "in" and "out" for people: you can choose to be petty and ignore the real issue, or you can take an introduction for what it should be and say, "wow, got through that one fairly easy"....."now show me the body".

    My syntax/phrasing, for "What then can be accepted that is POSSIBLE", I am saying, "what then can and should we accept that is realistic, what can we accept as as answer that makes sense, what type of theory should we purse that is not going to CHALLENGE the very LOGIC of our ability to be AWARE in the first place".
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Sorry, I have a job/education explenation to do right now, will continue on the reading when I'm done. Didn't see anything else wrong about the postulates page 1-16. Good luck, saw your post, good to hear.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    OK, but for anyone else out there reading the book, don;t be fooled by the time you live in: everything is spell-checked and air-brushed, these days...........to the point people no longer see the forest for the trees, to the point no one goes for the meaning of the script, the purpose of the manuscript.........the idea being conveyed.

    Sure, there are spelling errors in the book.

    I fart from time to time: if anyone knew that, it would be an error I need to correct............but farting is not my modus-operandi...........

    I mean, what's worse, someone who immaculately spell checks a book, without understanding a single statement, or someone who admits the book being presented has it;s flaws, but thatk God they are only spelling or grammatical errors.

    Look, I have seen so many grammatical and spelling errors in posts made to me, I thought, "wow, if I offered something without any errors whatsoever, it might be unbelieveable".

    OK: if anyone finds a major flaw in the book, take it up from where I obviously would have left it off.

    Now, don't forget: this is THE OPPORTUNITY for the scientific community to restandardize itself in the financial market place............to re-evaluate the concept of being hired by agencies...........and at what price, even if you decide to collude.

    "I am looking for a theoretical physicist.....will pay".
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    I guess, but if you want to doctorate with it, ie make a what we call in sweden "doctorsavhandling" then you may not have spelling errors.

    That said, on page 23 you speak about absence of 1 as (-1). Perhaps you can reveal for me what you want to have said with that?

    Moreover, would you agree or do you deny that:
    only add of experience can be experienced?

    Then naturally there is only one way of time, and that is the gain way.
    We will become one infinite dimensional dot.

    Hey, I liked the dot thingy on page 24. Nice! :wink:

    At what page do the actual equation come?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Page 26 and all is well, it is starting to get a little corny though, not a letter is the other alike.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    and you want to be a part of history?

    OK........I am more entertained, believe it nor not, than you are.

    .boo.

    Can you explain to me my obvious "problem"?

    .......please though, forget the download, like you have the time.............
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    and you want to be a part of history?

    OK........I am more entertained, believe it nor not, than you are.

    .boo.

    Can you explain to me my obvious "problem"?

    .......please though, forget the download, like you have the time.............
    W8, ehm PM me what we are talking about.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    "we" are trying to make sense, currently, of "english languagge".

    Soon, if I am not to be proved wrong, we will go to "another language", maybe something up your alley......3rd wolrd?
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    "we" are trying to make sense, currently, of "english languagge".

    Soon, if I am not to be proved wrong, we will go to "another language", maybe something up your alley......3rd wolrd?
    No, allas I am not from the third world, unless gods and aliens are considered first and second.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    by who?
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    by who?
    Well I'm not complaining, It's good here too. *waiting for black hole, cannot wait, must convert space time curvation into a strong beem that fusions everything*
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    I've done the math, and now I am watching...........well, I am watching.............this apparently is not the place or the time to make "statements" that could seem "improper".
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    But what if we could top it. We would never know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    The BEST thing we can do is PREDICT (with theories) shit they (those doing the research) couldn't see flying.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    And probably there are things we haven't thought up yet, like something totally marvelous. Well you can't blame them for making that black hole, it does sound very tempting...
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    ..............yes, very good............I feel akward as well.

    xxxx them..........they obviously know what they are trying to "highlight".
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    The maya was pretty sure it would end 2008 (correction, seemingly 2012) too. Did you know that, you knew that, didn't you? How could they be so sure about that back then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    I am only sure about one thing...........not being associated to bullshit.

    Everything else.....it's something I have conceded I must debate.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    I am only sure about one thing...........not being associated to bullshit.

    Everything else.....it's something I have conceded I must debate.
    Well you have that airflow rune, don't you? and the maya had... ancient pyramids.

    Okay okay, i just interconnected this phenomenon with a profecy i had heard of. It probably isn't correct, after all what did we know back then?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    OK. Let me be brief: page 2 is PURE ADVERTISEMENT FACTOR.

    PLEASE get over PAGE 2.

    Ever seen a debate where someone throws a wobly to start with?

    I apologise to them for screwing up this one.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    967
    Aaah, the theory starts on page 31, right?

    Well I agree in a high degree to page 31, totally plausible.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    From page 31 I introduce the new axioms, and then with all the space-time folding (to have the contruct be holistic) the equations begin to fall into place. It's actually quite fascinating how the equations evolve from those new sets of space-time precedents. I use to title the mid-section "atomic origami", because that is exactly what is taking place, namely the folding of space-time constructs for them to better fit the axiom mechanics requirements.

    If you understood up to page 31, what is being suggested is that there exists the possibility that we ca perceive space-time properly, and not just properly in theory, but as a theory, "virtually".......as a "virtual reality"......that we can "imagine" it. And that implication which I dont touch on in the book makes it possible for us to suggest in fact how we "can" imagine things, like visions and dreams, relevant to the structure of reality. I don't touch on it, like other subjects, because otherwise I begin to address issues more relevant to a persons "own" awareness.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    LeavingQuietly, and others reading the book: note that you are at liberty to not just understand the theory, but at liberty to field questions from others about the theory, and in advanced cases, charge people for your time in explaining theory. As I specified, this is a new theory of science, and so opportunities exist for not just new fields of research, but new titles of understanding. Ideally, I am trying to stream it neatly with contemporary institutions of learning.......but given they are more often than not "too busy", these measures must be taken.

    The more advanced implications for the tech-develops of the theory is in computers.........that "intelligent" networks can be designed to the atomic level.......relatively simply.........using geometrical constructs. That's just one example of a new field of research: NEW COMPUTER PROGRAMMING harware and software........it will keep Microsoft busy. But this is the thing, the introduction of this new science has to start somewhere. Opporunities ALWAYS exist for those first-in. This is gold. I won't stop anyone from making anything they want out of it.

    I've have done all I can with it. I have found my research venture, which I have been on for the past 8 years, one that is within my budget. My research venture is in "virtual perception networks" and "system programming". It doesn't cost anything, and is hugely interesting. Basically, the "big picture". I only say this because when asked, "why don't you do something with it", I am, technically. Basically, the system of space-time is a huge purposefully driven machine, and to understand how it works is a profession in itself. And now I am just trying to make the theory more widely understood.......useful to others.....how people want to apply it is their "business", literally.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29 Re: I am looking for a theoretical physicist.....will pay 
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Hi,

    I am looking for a quote to hire the services of a theoretical physicist to review a 370 manuscript over the period of one month, 15 days to get through the manuscript properly, the rest Q and A.

    Please use the PM button for your more personal tenders....in US dollar.

    Make it an auction, if you will.....
    In theory I could be a Physicist = theoretical Physicist

    so I'm your man
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Forum Professor
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,120
    Joking aside, I haven't seen the book, bnut from posts I gather something to do with time for which I am my own theories.

    Meanwhile re predicting future, tis possible. The question is how is it possible. I have a few theories on how it is possible.

    Regarding being able to know the future if you understand the fabric of reality (one post here suggested this) that IS possible too.

    As the author of this thread suggests, we can know the future if we can read it in the farbic of our reality. The language is out there for us all to see, we just don't recognise it.

    We do not shape the future or reality with our thoughts. Our thoughts are subliminally occurring to us as a result of what is already 'laid down' for us to react to and to respond to. We are already aware of this phenomenon and we use it. Magicians and illusionists use it as do hypnotists. They use the power of suggestion to prompt certain actions and behaviours from us. The Universe is set up already to do this and it does it to us every moment of the day.


    If I pass a street poster with a banana on it I may find myself desiring a banana even though I am oblivious to the fact my vision picked up on that image on the poster. Most, if not ALL our thoughts are influenced subliminally this way by the world around us and is dictated as a way for us to behave and think in a given situation.

    If you were able to SEE natures subliminal messages you could indeed predict how people would think and behave.
    'Time is the space between birth and death' by me.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Yes.

    My research work currently in using this new science is not in predicting the future, but properly understanding the how and why of history to better understand future trends. Some already do that with things for instance like the stock-market, but using an advanced theory of perception, an enhanced perception, is interesting enough to make it almost an obsession.

    Still, in noting that the theory will eventually see the contgemporary-science light of day of recognition, I realise that I need proof that I tried my best to put it out there for people to make use of. That's why it is here, namely in doing the math and in avoiding a future complication of being secretive about the theory.

    I don't want to go down in history as a gollum or a troll who wouldn't share a theory like this one, freely.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman FractalMind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    26
    As you know, I have just started to nick at the tip of this proverbial ice berg. I'll keep reading and do so in a way to search for holes and validation of the theory without bias. All I want to know is what best makes sense about the functions of time.

    To be honest, the only thing that bothered me (at first) was the asthetics of the paper. It was a little difficult to grasp where one paragraph left of and another started a few times.

    However, the substance was good and in got more meaty as I continue to read.Really, asthetics are not needed, but the true reason I say this is that it might not seem professional. People might do the "his/her application has poor pen-manship and spelling, which means he must be a slacker and not care to be detailed". Yet, you are trying to reach cerebral folks, and they'll more than likely see the substance as I did.

    Have not gotten far enough into the workings of the theory to make a good look at it. I (or anyone else) would probably need to get through it before really looking back over it and needling each segment to give it an accurate assesment. My guess is that it would at a good two weeks or so, heh.

    Will update further as more is read.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    It is going to cost me about 1200 pounds to get it proof read, which converts to about $3000AUD. It's a lot of money to have the whole thing grammatically correct. Yet I do state that the theory itself comes before the grammar. I am honored nonetheless that you are showing a genuine interest in it.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    It is going to cost me about 1200 pounds to get it proof read, which converts to about $3000AUD. It's a lot of money to have the whole thing grammatically correct. Yet I do state that the theory itself comes before the grammar. I am honored nonetheless that you are showing a genuine interest in it.
    Dont do that! Its a waste of money.


    Physicists are not "mills and boon", they are not judging you on your grammar!
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Phew.

    That's what I thought.

    But, I am tempted to get it translated into Russian, to give Russian scientists a go.................they may ask for less in roubles...........it may be more cost effective..............

    .......maybe Japanese scientists are looking for a theory like this?

    Mmmm(?)
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Forum Ph.D. GhostofMaxwell's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Thames estuary
    Posts
    851
    I really dont know what to tell you. It may cost just as much and more of it my get lost in translation though.

    I hear that particle Physics hasn't had a major overhaul for decades and decades, if thats any help to you.

    You've never talked to an English speaking particle Physicist about this?
    Es ist Zeit für sauberen



    You guys
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Mmmmm, I've never had the chance, to be honest.

    Talking to a particle physicist about a theory on subatomic phenomena sprung from a study of medicine with the application of mathematics may seem a bot of a joke to them.

    It will be interesting, though, looking back when someone finally does read the theory.........someone from the physics class.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Forum Junior Lucifer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Close to 290125001
    Posts
    223
    Quote Originally Posted by streamSystems
    Mmmmm, I've never had the chance, to be honest.

    Talking to a particle physicist about a theory on subatomic phenomena sprung from a study of medicine with the application of mathematics may seem a bot of a joke to them.

    It will be interesting, though, looking back when someone finally does read the theory.........someone from the physics class.
    I thionk that you should be showing him the mathematics. Science speaks mathematics, not English or Japanese or whatsoever.

    Anyone can explain Relativity in a paragraph. But the mathematics behind it, all the evidence and demonstration and the whole development of it, span along about a hundred pages of mathematics.

    So, it would be wise to provide your phyisicist the mathematics and keep the wordy explanation for later, once the maths are set and straight.

    Without mathematics ther'es no theory, just specualtion and guess, and you'll be losing your time and money -although maybe any physicist will plain refuse to review something unsupported with a good mathematical frame.

    Writing and speculating is fun. But they are the maths what make Science. :wink:


    (Corolary is, if you lack the abbility to make your own mathematics and support your sepcualtion, you are not making science. It may be science-fiction if you knwo and respect science, or fantasy if you just dismsis science but preserves a inner logic and coherence, or pseudoscience if you think that scientific theories amount to a bunch of words without anything bakcuping them, and so anything goes if it's well thoguht of... or it even may be crakcpotttey if it's like fantasy just without a inner logic)
    “If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin.” -Charles Darwin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Forum Ph.D. streamSystems's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    a reality you have all yet to properly explain
    Posts
    911
    Explaining the mathematics, they will ask me for a mathematics degree.

    Explaining the logic of perception, they will ask me for a medical degree AND possibly a mathematics degree.

    I can supply both of the latter, well, more than 75% on both paths.........in terms of degree enlightenment.

    BUT, I am thinking the longer I wait for someone to be serious about reading it, what with all this promotion, the more the current establishment of physics will feel some type of, "oh, shit, weren;t we up ourselves..........A LOT".

    That's not such a bad thing to demonstrate, in the future, when you think about it...........if that's true.
    Does a theory of everything therefore need to be purely theoretical and only account for the known laws and forces in handling the improbability of fortune telling?

    the www feature below can explain it better.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •