An Attractive Proposition (was - Space Elevator is itpossible?)

Painius writ, thus:

I am not stating cold, hard facts at this
point. I am setting forth some ideas that
obviously require falsification.

Uh, i'm pretty darn dense and need some enlightenment on this "requiring
falsification" thing. How do you "falsify" something that is
demonstrably and patently self-evident, like the Earth revolving around
the sun? And to what purpose?

How (and to what purpose) do you "falsify" these Points f'rintance:

1.) How do you falsify that the high, fixed propagation speed of light
irrespective of the velocity of the emitter _demonstrates_ a *carrier
medium* of a particular energy density which fixes its
'permeability/permittivity' value which fixes the value of c?

2.) How do you falsify the fact that there being NO PERCEPTIBLE UPPER
LIMIT TO AMPLITUDE OF EM RADIATION _demonstrates_ a *carrier medium* of
even greater energy density than the most energetic EM wave it carries?

3.) How do you falsify that gravity, by its appearance and behavior,
_demonstrates_ per Occam's Razor a pressure-driven, accelerating flow
into mass with mass synonymous with flow sink (or pressure drain)?

4.) The ability to crush a massive star down to a black hole, often
triggering a supernova or occasional hypernova, and the ability to
easily power the far more energetic and *sustained* process of a quasar
_demonstrates_ a spatial medium under hydrodyamic pressure exceeding
degeneracy pressure of the atomic nucleus. How do you falsify this?

5.) In light of the above, the fact that we perceive space as "void"
_demonstrates_ that its wavelength-state or 'granularity' resides below
the Planck length, below our sensory and EM resolution. The great bulk
of 'What Is', in terms of energy density, resides on the 'other side' of
the Planck line. How do you falsify this?

6.) Relativistic effects. Mass increase, foreshortening of rods, and
time dilation _demonstrate_ a spatial medium whose "viscosity" increases
with onset of relativistic speeds. How do you falsify it?
Admittedly, i'm at a loss to 'get' the reasoning behind needing to
"falsify" that which _demonstrates itself_ by a bounty of
incontrovertable evidence.