Strange

Clearly, you have made an error somewhere. Are you asking for help in finding it?

I never said it had stopped. It will take decades to clean up. A more credible status update can be found here: https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/focus/fukushima/status-update (I'm sure you think that is just propaganda created by The Man, but there isn't much I can do about that.) It might be, if it weren't ignorant twaddle. For example: Or perhaps you would like to provide a reference to the scientific literature that supports this nonsense?

I think this "documentary" might have been an episode of CSI...

The comments about plasma in that article are what are technically known as "bollocks". I suspect the comments about Fukushima being an ongoing disaster are equally reliable. Last I heard, the removal of nuclear fuel was proceeding smoothly.

When it matters (e.g. GPS positioning) you take the delay into account. When it doesn't matter (most examples of looking at stars or planets) you ignore it.

It can be treated as a force in many cases. But in some cases that is not accurate. Yes, gravity is how we perceive the curvature of space-time. The space-time four dimensional and gravity is caused by the curvature of that. Space-time can exist independently of mass.

You can define whatever start and end points you like. That is just the way it is. That is what mass does. You could even say, that is what mass is. I think you need to throw that idea away. It is not useful. (E.g. most of the mass of a proton comes from the binding energy - neither fermions nor bosons).

The geometry (lengths and curvature) of space and time. The presence of mass (and energy) directly affects the geometry of space and time. Why would you think it is "fermionic"? The electromagnetic field isn't (for example).

If someone writes nonsense then it will be recognised as nonsense, whether it is spelled correctly or not. Which is why I specifically said "spelling". Also, typographical mistakes are not the only source of spelling errors. Either way, refusing to correct ones spelling is rude to the reader. Then why introduce the subject?

Why? What is 1 foot made from? Is it the same thing 1 second or 1 metre is made of? So what? That logic is what led people to assume there must be some material "aether" that light was transmitted through. It turned out later that there is no such substance. This is one of many cases where "common sense" is useless. It is the geometry of distances and time (aka space-time).

There is no real excuse for poor spelling in an on-line environment with instant spell-checking available. Choosing to deliberately not correct errors strikes me as inconsiderate to the reader.

You have demanded others provide references to support their opinion, yet you provide none. You have also dismissed arguments you disagree with as just opinion. So it seems there is no basis at all for "please considering" this post. And please consider not prefixing every newly pretentious outpouring with "please consider". It provides no extra credibility to your opinions. A more honest introductory phrase might be "in my not so humble opinion" (IMNSHO).

I think that is pretty obviously true, from looking at the history of science and the fact that nearly all theories have a limited range of applicability. Yep, the "lone maverick scientist" is pretty much an invention of science fiction (and people who post their personal theories on science forums).

It isn't a separate thing. It is just distances and time. It is actually 1/r. You have a ruler? That measures the "space" part. You have a clock? That measures the "time" part. Put them together (distances in three dimensions plus time) and you have space time. We naturally tend to think of the distances and times between events as fixed and linear, because that is the way it appears to us. But it turns out that if you measure very accurately (or at very high speeds or energies) that they are not constant nor linear. What would you expect distance to be made of? Neither distance not time have any mass, so no. A sphere rotating in water will generate almost no ripples. An asymmetrical object (e.g. a stick) will generate significant ripples.

General relativity. Several.

Biological evolution didn't (by definition). However, it is quite possible (likely, even) that chemical evolution did.

It has 24 references and 7 other external links. Special relativity is irrelevant because you are dealing with something that is (and can only be) described in general relativity.

Several of the errors in your post have already been mentioned (assuming objects travelling at the speed of light, ignoring the velocity addition formula, etc.) but the above is, perhaps, the oddest part of the whole thing. Theory predicts that mass (strictly, the total energy) as observed by a stationary observer, will increase. It also predicts that length will decrease. This implies an increase of observed density. Now, these changes and all other aspects of the theory have been measured by experiment. But you decide it must be wrong because you believe density cannot change. That is just bizarre. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

It is better to think of them as waves of space (more accurately space-time) rather than travelling independently of space. Electromagnetic waves are ripples in the electromagnetic field and, by analogy, space-time is the field that gravitational waves travel rhrough. Juts because electromagnetic waves can be modelled in terms of two components doesn't mean that all waves have to be. Sound waves are not, for example. It is gravity all the way down.

Any object with masses gravity. That gravity doesn't change over time. Even if the object revolves (like the Earth) the gravity is constant. But if the object is not symmetrical (like a pair of orbiting black holes) then there will be variations in the gravity they causes as they move; you would feel changes in the force of gravity as first one black hole went past and then the other. These variations in gravity spread out from the rotating objects at the speed of light, getting fainter as they go.

No.

That sounds like exactly the sort of thing that school helps with.

An effect in fluid dynamics: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave The transmission of regular changes or ripples in the curvature of space-time: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_wave They travel through space-time. Whether you consider that to be "nothing" or not is a matter of semantics and not terribly relevant or helpful.

It could be (because it is science). It would require evidence to show it is wrong, not just your doubts. It is one of the best tested theories we have. That is not quite true. But you finding it ridiculous is irrelevant. http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Dunno. He seems very keen to promote himself, his books and his services as a speaker. But apparently that doesn't make him enough money so he asks for "donations" as well. <shrug>