Your response is very strange There is a difference between i Ask What are the steps i take in this way? and between asking you what are your thoughts scientific? I Ask the first question and not the second … Please note that. I do not understand why you not to try to advise me.
What did I just read?
Ohai, your wish came true…‘Bring back qqqbee’
i’m sorry I feel i’m a heavy guest on the forum becouse some of the answers. …I apologize for inconvenience … it is the last comment i will do in the forum as long as I have caused you the inconvenience
and thank you
I don’t understand what’s being asked here. If you want to contribute to scientific knowledge, then you need to have an environment that is supportive of the research process. That tends to be universities, and Ph.D. is the way to get into that environment professionally.
If you want to do applied science (taking scientific knowledge and turning it into products and services, which could include financial products and services), then you need to become knowlegable (which is a combination of at least a master’s degree or equivalent training, plus years of experience). Or you can try to manage other scientists. If you do that, you won’t get a lot of credit for the process, but you will be a part of it, which can be satisfying.
The way to contribute to scientific knowledge is to have an idea that turns out to work, have a research process that is firm enough to show that you know what is what - this involves the serious consideration of alternative explations that aren’t your own and seriously testing the possibility that you might be wrong - and publish those results in a place that is reputable, which usually involves peer review.
In finance, many of the breakthroughs have profit potential only if they are not published and therefore not copiable, so you may make contributions, but either they will not be profitable to you, or they will have to remain semi-secret for decades (actually, Nobel Prizes are often given for work that is already a decade or two old, though that is because they need time to disseminate, be accepted, and then generate agreement that they are prize-worthy).
The key to contributing to scientific knowledge is to publish research that is valuable and whose conclusions are reached through a rigorous process. There’s no guarantee that your idea will work or be valuable. Most scientific time is spent pursuing dead ends until something comes up, but there is value to the researcher in making the research process better and more practiced. Universities are good places for that because they tolerate dead-ends and failed hypotheses far better than much of the private sector and especially the financial sector. In finance, if you fail for more than a quarter or two, they figure you’re dead wood and you are chucked out. If you have your own money, you can be like the French scientists of the 18th century, just hope that you don’t get your head chopped off in a revolution like Lavoisier.
If you don’t want to go the academic route, then you basically have to have a source of your own money to do your research (as cpk123 mentioned), or have a rich friend/mentor that will let you spend it. People who don’t know you will want some assurance that you actually know what you are doing, and the best way is to have some kind of academic qualification and/or publishing record.
But at some point, you’re going to have to do some work on your own to figure this stuff out, rather than just demanding that other people tell you.