Strange

I don't think that is the reason why lying doesn't work in science. After all, people do lie about other things that have serious consequences. The reason that lying doesn't work in science is that, sooner or later, you will be found out because science is evidence based. So if you lie about vaccinations causing autism and fake the evidence, then you will be found out and struck off when others look at the evidence. But, sadly, the negative consequences continue despite the individual being punished.

I have never heard anyone else say that truth is as changeable as the wind or that it is subjective and unreliable. Your examples don't show that truth, or right and wrong are arbitrary and decided on a random basis. They show that, not surprisingly, these are complex ideas that have to be tuned to the specific situation. The fact that some people think that truth is relative, not absolute (or, perhaps more accurately, it can be relative) does not necessarily imply that people don't trust truth.

Although we have already seen the NRA sue Florida after the made some half-hearted improvements. So they clearly don't approve of democracy when it goes against them (or the 1st amendment when it lets people speak out against the dangers of guns).

The wavelength of radio waves goes down to about 1mm. I think you need much, much smaller spacing to measure the Casimir effect, which is very small and decreases with the 4th power of distance. And there is no reason to think that radio waves would do what you think because electromagnetic waves do not interact. This is more guesswork than scientific speculation.

This is a measure of how entangled they are (entanglement is not an either-or thing): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_entanglement#Entropy I assume this is referring to the need to keep the masses far enough apart to eliminate other interactions (e.g. Casimir-Polder) that could cause entanglement but still allow measurable gravitational interaction. Not sure. But it will probably be a Thursday. No idea. Maybe because they can be made small, with high purity, and a regular and stable crystal structure that can tweaked in the right way ? More background on the proposed experiment here: https://www.quantamagazine.org/physicists-find-a-way-to-see-the-grin-of-quantum-gravity-20180306/

Is this based on your own behaviour? Or is it the way others treat you? Either way, it doesn’t appear be true of humanity in general.

By this “logic” one can say that yetis, like fairies, have never been detected but ichthyosaurs have, therefore yetis are ichthyosaurs.

How do you propose to produce the boundary conditions created by two conducting metal plates by using radio waves (which are neither static nor conducting)

Even more impressive than that, you can find images of atoms and molecules where you can see the shape of electron orbitals which have the (smooth) shape predicted by theory.

As Hawking radiation is based on theory and your suggestion appears to be random guesswork based on “common sense” I would say, no, it isn’t more likely. BTW your description of Hawking radiation is a not very accurate version of an analogy for what happens. I have seen a much better description recently; I’ll see if I can find it again.

MK? Martin Luther King?

I'm sure they will get on like a house on fire. As long as it doesn't turn into a planet on fire. (I can imagine the two of them daring each other to be the first to "press the button".)

Today I learned that HACCP stands for Hazard Analysis and Critical Control Points And that appears to be the "standard" American pronunciation. Whether it is the most common or not is a different question...

Today I learned that "piezo-" has many more pronunciations than I thought possible. (I had, of course, assumed there was only one: mine.) pie-zo pee-eh-zo pee-zo pee-at-zo pie-tso pee-eh-tso pee-tso pee-at-so and maybe more.

Unintended humour (I hope): Yesterday, Secretary of State Tillerson blamed Russia for the attempted murder of an ex-spy in Britain with nerve agent. Today, Trump fired him and said the reason is "chemistry".

Dark energy has been seen (from the lab). Gods have not been seen. No. It is based on observation. (As MigL points out, those observations could turn out to be wrong. But at last we have observations. Unlike your gods which are unsupported by observations.) Via supercolliders? Really? You might as well say that people are trying to see gods with electron microscopes. It would be just as accurate. Clearly you like to believe in things with no evidence or rational basis so you think this makes sense. Nonsense. Energy is a property of things. We (if not you) know the relationship between mass and energy. This incoherent rambling is (a) nonsense and (b) off topic.

The question is one of definitions and which theory you are talking about. In GR, for example, space-time is just a set of coordinates (distances between things and events). So space is just geometry. In quantum theory, space is the background in which things like virtual particles exist - because "empty" space has a non-zero energy level. It is possible, even likely, that in a future theory that combines quantum theory and gravity, space and time will not be fundamental properties but will emerge from some lower-level structure.

And I am surprised to find myself criticising him. I haven't yet seen any data suggesting this could make dark energy "go away" (and there are other reasons to think dark energy is present, anyway).

Which is why tidal forces exist. You don't even need a black hole to tear things apart: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit

Ultimately atoms and maybe even the atoms would be torn apart. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaghettification#Inside_or_outside_the_event_horizon

No. Long before that. For any reasonable size black hole the tidal forces would be quite enough to tear you apart before you fall through the event horizon. For larger black holes you might survive the event horizon but you would be very rapidly torn apart after that.

Because it is caused by the electromagnetic field. (I suspect that the wavelength of gravitons would be many times larger, anyway.)

Basically, what you are asking seems to be "is there any way of manipulating gravity (apart from the existence of mass or energy)?" It doesn't really make any difference whether you describe gravity in terms of gravitons (which we can't currently) or space-time geometry or Newtonian forces: we don't know any way to manipulate it. Would a theory of quantum gravity (i.e. a theory including gravitons) change that? Maybe. Maybe not. Any other answer is a complete guess.

And I am talking about science. Can you devise an experimental test to distinguish between interpretations? No.

No. There is not even a theory describing them fully. There are a few properties that they must have, if they exist (like being massless, spin 2, etc) because of the nature of gravity. But that's about it.