[Origin]

I don't have a degree in physics so I can 't make it accepted. It is an excellent important  idea it mustn't bury forever . How I solve this?

The solution is for you learn a little bit of physics so you can realize that when you stand on your toes the reading on the scale should not double.  In other words your idea is incorrect.

[Origin]

What if Newton's laws are still unknown and someone with only mechanics background discovered them how it will be accepted if he do not have a physics degree?

Newtonian physics is correct, your interpretation is wrong, so there is nothing to be concerned about.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

so you can realize that when you stand on your toes the reading on the scale should not double.  In other words your idea is incorrect.

Why it should not double ? I press the scale with the force I lift my body with which should make the scale read double it is basic physics.

[Origin]

Why it should not double ?

I have already shown you.  Would you like me to find the post for you?

I press the scale with the force I lift my body with which should make the scale read double it is basic physics.

No that is not basic physics, you are wrong.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

What if Newton's laws are still unknown and someone with only mechanics background discovered them how it will be accepted if he do not have a physics degree?

Newtonian physics is correct, your interpretation is wrong, so there is nothing to be concerned about.

Newton's laws will not be known if they are correct or not if they are not tested.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Why it should not double ?

I have already shown you.  Would you like me to find the post for you?

If it is not doubled what value should be and why? What is the x?

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

   When you stand on the scales and just do nothing,   there is a force upwards on your body.  It's called the reaction force and it comes from the floor you're standing on.  So that woud be the bathroom scales if you are standing on those. This will precisely match the downward force from gravity.

   Your body won't accelerate until there is a net force on it.  Gravity and the normal reaction force are in equal proportion but opposite directions, so there is no net force on your body.

   When you stand on tip toes you only need to produce the tiniest amount of additional upward force.  Since there was no net force to start with,   ANY extra force will be a net force on your body.   So your body starts to accelerate and you effectively lift yourself up on to your toes.

    That's it that's all there is to it.  I would imagine this has explained by several people before.

If it is not doubled what value should be and why?

   As explained above, when you lift yourself on to your toes the scales barely change at all.  You only needed the smallest extra force and only for a brief moment of time to start accelerating your body upwards.
    Your skeleton or body was already providing a force that kept your body un-accellerating despite gravity, it hardly needs to do any more.  Any tiny extra force will cause a net acceleration.

    I think one problem with your ( @Yahya A.Sharif ) understanding is that you think an object of large mass needs a larger force to accelerate.  It doesn't,  even a tiny net force will accelerate a large mass.   The only thing about a large mass is that a tiny force would accelerate it slowly, meanwhile the same force will accelerate a small mass quickly.

Best Wishes.

[Origin]

If it is not doubled what value should be and why?

So when you are not moving the scale will read:
60 kg.  F = (60 x 9.8 m/s^2) = 588 N

Let's say you then stand on your toes. You will elevate your body about 15cm.  Let's assume it takes 1/2 second to raise on your toes.  That would give you roughly an acceleration of 30 cm/s^2 or about 0.3 m/s^2. 

So the overall acceleration will be:
9.8 m/s^2 + 0.3 m/s^2 = 10.1 m/s^2

So the scale should read:
F = (60 x 10.1 m/s^2) = 606 N

Convert Newtons to to kg: (606N/9.8 m/s^2) = 61.8 kg

So the scale will read 61.8 kg while you are raising on your toes not 120 kg.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

Let's say you then stand on your toes. You will elevate your body about 15cm.  Let's assume it takes 1/2 second to raise on your toes.  That would give you roughly an acceleration of 30 cm/s^2 or about 0.3 m/s^2. 

You can not accelerate against gravity with 0.3 m/s² you need at least gravity acceleration 9.8 m/s² so the rest of the calculations are wrong. So what is this extra x?

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

   Your body won't accelerate until there is a net force on it.  Gravity and the normal reaction force are in equal proportion but opposite directions, so there is no net force on your body.
   
When you stand on tip toes you only need to produce the tiniest amount of additional upward force.  Since there was no net force to start with,   ANY extra force will be a net force on your body.   So your body starts to accelerate and you effectively lift yourself up on to your toes.

If you have a block on the ground of 20 kg it has gravity force and normal force yet you need at least a net force equals the weight 196 N to accelerate it upwards.

Any tiny extra force will cause a net acceleration.

The least force must be the weight  9.8*60=588 N. So do you think I can lift a 20 kg with a 0.1 N?

[Eternal Student]

Hi.

   @Origin ,  your calculation had some minor errors but it doesn't really matter too much.  In some places you were mixing the average speed required to reach 15cm in ½ second  with the acceleration that would be required.

If you have a block on the ground of 20 kg it has gravity force and normal force yet you need a net force equals the weight 196 N to accelerate it upwards.

   No you wouldn't, if you could keep all the original forces as you were lifting.   If only we could just give it a tiny little extra force pushing upwards then it most certainly would start to accelerate upwards.   
   Sadly we can't just add a little force simply by lifting the block with our hand.   When you start to lift up the block, you start to take away the contact with ground which means you are taking away the normal reaction force it had from the ground.   So that's the problem - you can't JUST add a little extra force, the process of lifting ends up removing the contact with the ground which means that you start by losing (or taking away) the upward force on the block.  The block won't start to accelerate upward until you have completely replaced the reaction force with your own hand first, only then can you give it that little bit of extra force required to cause the acceleration.

Best Wishes.

[Origin]

   @Origin ,  your calculation had some minor errors but it doesn't really matter too much.  In some places you were mixing the average speed required to reach 15cm in ½ second  with the acceleration that would be required.

Yes I know, I said it was a rough calculation.  I thought it would be the clearest way to show him that he was looking at this problem wrong.  Of course he dismissed the calculation out of hand, like he has done for any help he has been given for the last year or so.  I think he is enamored with the thought that he has discovered something new, so he will accept nothing that jeopardizes his belief.  I figured it was a waste of time but I tried.

[paul cotter]

this is futile, it will keep going round in circles. the human body, weighing 60kgs, has a nervous system adapted to carrying that weight and it is relatively easy to move about and do various manoeuvers. now add 20kgs and walk 1 mile- it will require considerable effort. now if this human overeats for a period and gains 20kgs, the same I mile walk will not require the same effort as when carrying the salient 20kgs, as the body has adjusted to the weight. what the op Is proposing is the perception of weight. science does not do perceptions, it does measurement.

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

this is futile, it will keep going round in circles.

Because I try as hard as I can but nobody understands or accepts

[Yahya A.Sharif (OP)]

What is this extra x kg on the scale? what its value and why?

[Kryptid]

Because I try as hard as I can but nobody understands or accepts

We understand it just fine. What you are claiming is impossible.

[Bored chemist]

Because I try as hard as I can

No you do not.
If you really were trying as hard as you can, you would start by learning actual physics from the Khan Academy of some such.
Then you would realise why you are wrong.

Instead, you just keep saying the same untrue things .

Why do you refuse to study?

[Eternal Student]

Hi again.

Because I try as hard as I can but nobody understands or accepts

     People have been equally certain their theory was right before.   We've had models of the universe where everything went round the earth, for example.
     The thing is, if you try hard enough, then you can make your model work, just like you can make the model work where everything goes around the earth.  To make your theory work it would mean changing the way we consider most things, like all of Newtonian Mechanics.  That is only going to happen if your theory does something more useful, better, or more simply than the existing theory.   It does not seem to do this.
     There is no absolute truth in a scientific theory just some utility (some usefullness for making predictions and/or for helping human understanding).  It really doesn't matter if your theory is "true" in some profound philosophical sense.   Science is mainly just about utility.
     As a consequence your theory is not likely to be "accepted" into the mainstream of science as a result.   Since it doesn't do more than the existing theory or explain something more simply, the old theory won't be changed for this new one.
    Thank you for your time bringing this to people's attention.

Best Wishes.

[Origin]

The thing is, if you try hard enough, then you can make your model work,

His model says a person who weighs 50 kg will weigh something like 80 kg the instant they die.  I realize you want to be kind to people but telling someone that there crazy idea is plausible is not really helping them IMO.

[Bored chemist]

There is no absolute truth in a scientific theory

Actually; sometimes there is.
In some instances the scientific principle is based in a mathematical proof.
One instance is the conservation of mass.
And the OP is trying to say (as origin points out) that mass is not conserved.
Well.. yes it is- provably so.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noether%27s_theorem