This question already has an answer here:
I have some ideas related to computer architecture/electrical engineering on which I would like to get feedback from academics.
A professor at a university I visited has the belief that something I proposed is crackpot, and that I must be delusional for not accepting his arguments. I turned up out of the blue one day for the first meeting, which I suspect many "crackpots" likely do, and I suspect that this fact alone has made him tune out.
He has a very fixed mental model of the concepts being dealt with, and makes many assumptions that only hold in certain cases, for particular definitions of a concept, or for what has been observed so far but not tested in the context of the idea. An unfairly high standard of proof is then requested of me, when a much less clear-cut body of evidence, or less-rigorous tests lend support to my claim. Discussions with other people educated in the area are more fruitful, but the same fallacies that only apply conditionally are frequently trotted out.
I am not formally educated in the field, and he uses this during every part of the conversation to insist that only a learned person (professor or researcher in the field) has the ability or competence to comprehend the concepts properly (which is false), and that only such a trained person who has built themselves up from the bottom can develop and spot flaws in the difficult concepts entertained.
(This is not true, and I believe the following analogy applies to my situation: one can easily run or swim before they can walk.)
Competence doesn't always make you strictly better at something in the same way that one number is always bigger than another.
If I ask him to not dismiss these options and rebuttals out of hand, he simply says that everyone says that... Bozo the Galileo clown... you're not right because you're laughed at. A strawman which I never implied - I am being laughed at (because I am right?) in spite of being right.
Since I'm introducing new terminology and modifying existing terminology (while trying to clearly explain what I mean by it) in some of these discussions, I have also been ridiculed for essentially describing something that few others understand, and accused of 'trying to sound smart and be the next lone genius' of the field. Without this new terminology, explaining what I mean by it gets clunky and easy to confuse with similar concepts already employed in the field.
What can I do to open some kind of productive dialogue or actually get heard out (should I talk about the details of the ideas here)? Publishing a full academic paper (as an outsider) and going through potential rigamarole during the process seems a poor option to me; though pointers would be appreciated if you feel this is appropriate regardless. I'm quite sure that I'm either right about this idea, or any errors in it have not been brought up yet and are in the more minute details.