Of course we are very interested in reading the paper. Imagine being able to be one of the first 100 or so people to read an historic paradigm shifting surprise to the scientific community.
What you should be aware of is that some of us have read papers that are promoted by their authors as such astonishing novel contributions. They are overwhelmingly the work of utter crackpots that, if they are literate enough to be read at all are easily demonstrated to be as full of holes as swiss cheese.
Anyone who was actually interested in accomplishing what you claim would be anxious in the extreme to have your work examined as soon as possible to get help in finding flaws in it's presentation, evidence or reasoning. Hiding it, continually promising it without deliverying and braying about how marvelous it is are further characteristics of crackpottiness.
You might give thought to that. (or, more likely, you might not)
You also forget that many here find the most controversial and surprising things the most interesting. We actually
are interested in reading such things. However, given the evidence of your 3 x 1,000 posts so far we are expecting to be disappointed and, at best, amused again.