So I've had this computer architecture idea for a while. I've made some other posts about this on academia and may make one on EE stackexchange, and I hope I don't come off as bitter. The thing is, I feel that some of the people I talk (mostly IRL, but also some on specialty EE forums) to about this misrepresent my idea, and insist on their misunderstanding when criticising or dismissing what I say. Some will then insist on evidence from me that this will work, which I provide, but not before they interrupt me mid-sentence and come away with a misleading picture of what I am saying.
Of course, this alone does not make me right, but I am sure that these specific criticisms of my idea are wrong.
The gist of this idea is it is a microprocessor pipeline and datapath prediction/ordering algorithm that attempts to sift through some fairly noisy and generally considered difficult to predict data streams to find out what will happen next, so as to improve the performance of the resulting microprocessor design, better than existing 'out-of-order, windowed, branch-predicting' designs.
When I react to what they say, I like to think that I am patiently correcting their misconceptions. Generally I try and wait until they are done with their statement before explaining where they have gone wrong or what they missed context-wise, and when I introduce the idea, while I do frame it as potentially a big discovery if true, I do NOT speak about fame or being the best engineer or revolutionary (besides just saying it is a big idea and a big change). I am not sure if the way I am phrasing my statements is inherently misleading them into making misguided or incorrect criticisms of my idea by planting wrong ideas in their head, but I take a lot of effort to be very clear about what cases I think the idea applies in, what context and follow each step from the previous one. How they react to this varies. Some fall silent, and one in particular insists on their misinterpretation as debunking my argument(s).
What would you recommend I do to resolve this conflict? While I cannot be 100% certain that I am right about everything I say, I know that most of the criticisms I have received so far are wrong (but they either do not realise it or will not admit to it). What do I do when I know that many of the 'establishment' views on something are wrong, but attempts to explain why they seem wrong are met with accusations that I am ignoring evidence, that I can't accept that I'm wrong and that I just want to pad my ego by sounding smarter than big names in this field?