I'm not sure how to address the thrust of your statement other than to say it's complete horse puckey.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scientific method. Science is not just some forum where anyone can rock up and demand 'equal time' to have their voice heard.
You have zero rights to demand that scientists 'debate' you. Science is not, and never has been, a democracy.
So you have a cute little hypothesis and scientists are ignoring it? Well that's just too bad. That's the way it works, that's the way it's always worked and that is the way it always will work. If someone sends me a paper with the introduction, "Why I think the sky is green" then it goes straight into the bin.
Should I be forced to publish that paper? Is it only fair and reasonable that I should debate with someone that believes the sky is actually green?
If you send a patent application for a perpetual motion machine, it will be trashed without any further thought, despite your pleadings that you've found something that every scientist in history has missed. And rightly so.
And as before- you are quite free to write your own paper with your own original research and submit it for publication. But I'll say this in a firm and direct manner: you'd better brush up on the basics of the scientific method because believe me, you're not getting anyone to listen to you if you haven't got the basics right. Copernicus overthrew the Ptolemaic system because he knew it thoroughly. Einstein deposed Newtonian physics because again, he knew it from front to back. You've got zero chance of anyone taking you seriously if you come across as a lazy outsider that couldn't be bothered to do the work.
