Does posting my work on the Internet protect me if someone else tries to publish it with peer review under their own name? I'm in a very unique situation. I have ideas of something potentially valuable for science and I want to get it published but I haven't been able to go through the peer-review process, yet. That is why I'm thinking about simply putting all I have on the Internet and leaving it be there to see would any "real" scientist (with the equipment and the position) be interested in them. I don't work in anything related to science and although I have a degree I don't have PhD so it's like I'm nobody. 

What is my "protection" if one of those experts (who obviously know much better how to publish) just takes it and puts his/hers name on it even if I manage to show files containing the same ideas loaded on the Internet for public access (so I have the site administration to verify my publication dates) much before his/her work was submitted to a journal? 

Does such obviously public documents have any weight against peer-reviewed paper or is the fact that s/he managed to go through the process but I didn't make these ideas his/hers? Is any value in the fact that a document is publicly displayed before the submission date or does the fact that it's publication anyways make it "the real deal" while the other document, even if it can be shown to be earlier by outside source (like the administration of the web site)? If I just "publish" it on the Internet under the Creatice Commons license does it give it any authority in any way measurable to a peer-reviewed publication or anybody who has one can claim ownership over the ideas?

P.S. Can the entire issue be "dissolved" quickly if the one who got it published in a peer-review journal just mentions my work in the acknowledgements and says these ideas were mine and s/he just "used" them. Then is the authorship of the ideas automatically transferred to me and the issue is non-existent? But what if I ask him/her and s/he refuses. Then, can I claim authorship of the ideas or are they out of my reach now and I would just have to be satisfied with the fact that at least now they have gained some form of recognition (although I'm not their author in the eyes of the community)? (The issue is I just want scientists to view my work seriously, I don't do it for the money, the job or the fame. I just want to know am I right or wrong, so what if someone just uses and claims authorship-should I be satisfied only with the fact that I was right all along or should I try to pursue him/her for non-proper use of my ideas.)
There are sites like arxiv.org where you can publish something, which isn't peer-reviewed yet, but which becomes public and stakes a claim to the idea.

However, that's usually what some people (usually at universities, not companies) do when they have a full-fledged paper to release. In your case it sounds, if I read this correctly, like you have some general ideas you have not yet had a chance to pursue in depth.  You're considering putting them out and inviting others to run with them, but want some credit.  I would say that if you simply put out a general idea, that is worth an acknowledgment in a paper, not co-authorship.  Being an author means actually doing some of the work -- writing text, doing experiments, etc.  I don't think what you describe rises to that level.  

One thing you might consider doing is putting out enough information to tease people into inquiring for more information, then trying to work with anyone who inquires to be more directly involved in the work as it proceeds.