It also allows you to assume (without evidence) that those who do not respond negatively, or not respond at all, might be in agreement with you.
@Jim_B take it from me. This will NEVER happen. Working scientists don’t have enough time to investigate all their own theories and hypotheses, let alone the ideas of some rando crackpot.
“Investigate and test” costs money. Real money. No scientist is going to try and get a government grant to test the ideas of a rando crackpot.
I was getting sleepy when I posted this last night and didn’t complete my thoughts.
My younger brother tried once to tell our uncle, a scientist, about one of his ideas. The uncle told him flat out that ideas are worthless. It’s the vetting process where the science is found. It’s also where the real hard work is, something that “idea people” seem to want to avoid.
For the OP, have any your ideas over the last 20 years led to anything?
If you want to contribute to science, wouldn’t your time be better spent studying one thing for 20 years?
Well, it would happen if the ideas had any merit. The usual misconception of those who try to promote their ill-conceived nonsense is that the reason nobody listens is because the scientific community has a vested interest in maintaining some kind of dogmatic scientific orthodoxy. To the contrary, scientists can only achieve fame and fortune through new ideas - provided the new ideas are supported by compelling evidence.
The reason scientists don’t take crackpot ideas seriously is not because the scientists have closed minds, not because the scientists want to prop up the orthodoxy, not because they are just too busy - but because the ideas are invariably bad ideas with no foundation in objective reality.
But not your unsolicited and poorly supported hypotheses. Those just get dismissed or discarded without ever being read.
That is not what you said at the beginning. You specifically said theories. You do not understand science. What you’re doing is sending out spam letters. The way you think science works is not the way it actually works. You’re now waffling–I think I’m using the correct term here for your version of moving the goalposts (kickoff tee?) here.
I’d imagine that the positive responses he’s received are standard boilerplate prepared by an intern and signed with a printed signature – “Thank you for contacting me regarding [INSERT CRACKPOT THEORY HERE]. I appreciate having the benefit of your views on this important matter.”
Interesting timing. I wonder if he got some letters from the OP.
Too bad the video guy just says he’s not qualified to judge the manifestos as he’s just a videographer. He suggests they be sent to more qualified people. Could just encourage the OP. (I only listened to the first 8 minutes)
Oh, believe me, I got it the first time, which is your actions struck me as disturbing. And FYI, the smiley faces don’t make a post lighthearted or humorous.
Reimann’s excellent post #93 puts it very well, particularly the last paragraph. Please read it again.
@flurb One guy, I seem to recall he was stationed in Cleveland, sent me back my papers with comments. He specifically wrote at the top of the ‘Circasepian Rhythm’ one (q.v.) ‘Like This’.
And BTW ‘bee in their bonnet’ obviously means acting overly irrational, and hysterical, to something that is innocent. Someone shared an much earlier thread where I used the exact same term. No one found it ‘disturbing’ 
then. 
EDIT: My Circasepian Rhythm Theory .
And really did you people give my theory a fair chance? The man from Cleveland (who I believe had a doctorate) gave it more of that.
And a paltry three replies? You spent more time theorizing what ulterior motive that I had for sending mail with return addresses (which you assure me changes nothing) than that.
TLDR; because this got away from me. If you want your theories published, don’t force them on people. Try to find someone in the medical field to partner up with that can help you properly research your theory, write a paper, get it peer-reviewed and published.
Doesn’t that kind of prove the point. That was more than a decade before this post and, even without the knowledge of what you were doing with these ‘theories’, it was still promptly ignored.
Also, you mentioned in that thread you wanted it posted in JAMA. If you want to do that, you need to get it peer reviewed. The problem, however, is that since I assume you’re not part of the medical field, neither will your peers be.
Here’s an 100% honest solution if you really want to get your theories published in a medical journal. And, again this isn’t joking or poking fun at you, it’s the only path I can see that might get you somewhere. First, on the assumption that your theories aren’t crackpot theories with no basis in reality (and circasepian [sic] rhythm seems to have something to it, but it could depend on what about circasepian rhythm you’re talking about, I guess). You need to find someone, with some type of degree in the medical (or medical research) field and talk to them about writing a with or for you. From there it can be peer reviewed and published and then picked up or submitted to a national medical journal.
IOW, put some feelers out to work with someone or pay them to help you write, and possibly test your theories. Just sending out random mail to random people isn’t going to get you anywhere. People in the medical and scientific field do this all the time. But maybe just send out some well written emails, maybe to research schools that you’d like set up a meeting with them.
Of course, the next problem will be money. I’m going to go out on a limb and presume you don’t have the money or the resources to get grant money to fund this endeavor, so unless the person you contact is really onboard with your ideas and willing to secure the money on their own, (maybe a grad student?) it might be the end of it.
Barring doing it that way, your best bet might be, as others said, to start a blog and see if it picks up steam. Look at how Andrew Wakefield changed the course of history. Yes, he was a doctor and got published in the Lancet, but lots of people are doctors and lots of people are published in the Lancet. He took over the world with a with a study so poorly done and even poorlier (that can’t be a word) presentation that he lost his medical license, all because a decade after Lancet and it’s aftermath, Jenny McCarthy picked it up and ran with it.
Your theories are being written off, even here where we don’t know what you’re talking about because, at least in part, your approach. Follow the correct channels and if they have any merit, they’ll eventually get where they need to be in order to become a real discussion.
Look at it like this. If anyone one got some random mail (email or snail mail) about a free energy machine, they’d toss it. If saw it in a youtube video, you’d maybe watch it for kicks but not think much of it. But if you ran across it in physics publication with co-authors Steve Mould, Mehdi Sadaghdar and Brian Cox* it would be taken more seriously.
*Sorry, I’m sure there’s better people out there, those were just the first three I thought of. And if ElectroBOOM didn’t rolls his eyes at your free energy machine and better yet, built and proved it, you’d be set for life.
Another possibility is to couch your ideas in fiction.
Write some good short stories that incorporate your ideas. If they are interesting, then they may inspire someone to investigate the concepts that you have embedded in them.
Warp drive will almost certainly never work, but due to Star Trek, quite a bit of resources has gone into investigating their possibility.
And, even if the idea doesn’t work, people may enjoy the stories anyway.
Damn, I love that idea. Also makes any theory more palatable, and more fun! I can think of Asimov and Niven theories that I NEVER would have read as a monograph, but I can explain in detail because a story was built using them.
With any luck, people will soon be paying you to read your ideas!
It’s not a “theory”, it’s a few sentences of casual observations. And even those few sentences don’t hold together into a coherent idea.
You draw a parallel to Circadian Rhythms, but it appears that you don’t understand the basic principles. A Circadian Rhythm originates within the organism, and operates on a fixed cycle that is refractory to modification. The classic phenomenon is jet lag. You feel sleepy during the day in the new time zone because your body’s internal clock thinks it’s the middle of the night. Even though it looks like daytime, and you would prefer not to sleep, your body still feels like it wants to sleep.
But you know it’s the weekend, and you know that you do certain different types of thing on the weekend, and that expectation puts you in a different frame of mind. So this is not evidence that there’s there’s any internal clock with a 7-day cycle that’s generating the “weekend feeling”.
And this observation directly contradicts the idea that there is an internal 7-day cycle that is determining these feelings. The fact that the feeling can easily be modified by different activities supports instead the explanation that I just gave - that it’s simply the knowledge and expectation of what you are doing on any particular day that puts you in a particular mood and frame of mind.
Again, what you need to be doing is not spamming the world with this, but (a) studying what we already know more carefully to make sure you understand it fully, and (b) developing your own critical thinking skills to think carefully about whether your own ideas are good ideas that stand up to scrutiny.
This all sounds great, except for the fact that bad ideas don’t make good fiction. OP still needs to develop his critical thinking skills to think much more carefully about which of his ideas are good ideas.
Eh, good fiction makes good fiction. A ringworld is a terrible idea, but it still generated some good stories.
It even inspired people to do the math to show all the many ways that it was a terrible idea.
Having read some of his musings, I completely agree. Just saying that if I wanted someone to take a look at my idea for FTL, I think it would be easier to get people to look at it if I wrote a science fiction story that incorporated it than trying to spam a bunch of physicists with it.
I read your entire post and it was thoughtful and informative as always. That said, I read this line:
… and I couldn’t help but think,
.
.
“Alas, there was no DeJoy in Mudville—mighty Post Office had struck out.”