Strange

Citation needed. Time is not dependent on the movement of matter. Although we have often used the (periodic) movement of matter to measure time. That is no longer true for the most accurate clocks. If time only exists in the minds of men and mice (why mice?) then how did the universe evolve to its current state before men an mice existed? And how did men and mice evolve if there was no time before they had minds? Citation needed. This, and similar topics, come up here from time to time. It usually comes down to random opinions like yours versus evidence, and is all a bit pointless. And not in the least bit fun.

You need to start a separate thread where you learn the basic concepts of relativity, and in particular, the concept of relativity of relativity of simultaneity. This shows that different observers measure time and space differently. The most obvious example that there is no universal "now" is the fact that different observers may disagree about whether two events are simultaneous or not. They might even disagree about the ordering of the events. There is lots of experimental evidence for SR. If you think the evidence is incorrect, then explain why. As I said, that makes no sense. Space is just three of the four dimensions of space-time. So you are saying space is independent of space?

That makes no sense.

I agree, that is a good summary. The important point is the methods used to eliminate biases. That is where good experimental design comes in. I heard a great example some time ago from stroke research - unfortunately, I can't remember the details but the key bit was along the lines: "we knew this couldn't possibly have any effect but knew we should include a test to eliminate it anyway." To their surprise this "impossible" effect turned out to be crucial and resulted in improved stroke treatment.

There is no absolute time or space. You need an introduction to SR and (apparently) how science works. I'm not going to waste my time on that (and it would be off topic in this thread). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_relativity https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_special_relativity

Nonsense. It isn't opinion. It is well tested theory. This is part of Einstein's theory and, therefore, is supposed by multiple experiments.

Therefore, energy is frame dependent. You just seem very confused.

I would. There is no centre to the universe. And I don't know what you mean by the "outer" universe. Also, none of this defends your claim that Einstein was wrong. Or that Einstein's theory is an "opinion". Or that there is a "universal now". All of which are wrong.

Space and time separates events. They are (in GR, anyway) points in space-time.

That would be my guess, without more information. I assume you mean an electric torch (flashlight) rather than a flame?

“I have no idea why you think my wish should be your command...”

But you said that energy is not frame dependent but frequency is. If there is a fixed relationship between them, that cannot be true.

Any evidence for this?

What do you think the size of a photon is?

Why?

There is no reason to think the Planck length is indivisible. Sadly not. Not even, "When Harry Met Sally"

Yes, yes and ... yes! Points, lines, etc are mathematical abstractions with no physical reality.

The coordinates (x,y,z,t) define the location of a single (zero-dimensional) point in space-time. If you have a line in space-time then it is a line: a one dimensional entity. A point in space could well be represented by a line (its world-line) in space-time. (which could be of finite length, or infinite.) On the other hand, it could just be a point in space-time as well.

It is probably more accurate to say that a point has zero dimensions. That’s kinda the definition. It can be a point in any number of dimensions - in a line, in a plane, in an N-dimensional space ...

I don't think that redefining everything in this way is helpful. A point can be defined (as a mathematical abstraction) even in 4D space-time. So saying a point is a line and a line is a surface is just confusing. Yes, you can create a 4D sphere (confusing called a 3-sphere!) and a 5D sphere, etc. (And the same for any other shape; there can be higher dimensional equivalents.)

It is not clear from this if you are still maintaining the (very well tested) relationship between energy and wavelength of photons or not.

That was deliberate. To match the vagueness of your claims. What is "substantial"? You could check if any of these meet your goal: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_searches_for_Lorentz_violation So are you saying that the energy of a photon is not related to its frequency? I assume you mean section 4. This appears to be the standard Michelson Morley experiment. This has been repeated to increasing levels of accuracy over the years (see the link above for details). How much more accurate do these need to be?

I really don't know how good a science communicator he is. I assume he is very good. As I say, my impression is based on the very misleading statements made by people presenting their "personal theories" on forums like this. That is more likely to be because they have misunderstood what he said or, perhaps, because they are misrepresenting it to make it fit with their own ideas.

It is, because your hypothesis violates it. How small? How about 10-35? Is that good enough for you? Or, I guess, you don't really know how small. You just hoped that it is too small to test so you can't be proved wrong...

What evidence do you have for this? How does one determine absolute motion? What is the the reference for "absolutely stationary"? How do you know that? How fast is the Earth (or the galaxy) moving with respect to that reference? How do you explain that all tests for Lorentz violation have not found any such thing? (To ludicrous levels of accuracy, in some cases.)