Is gravitational potential responsible for both, the mass-energy equivalence and the electromagnetic properties of space?

Gavitational potential originating from distant masses of the universe is about 10⁸ times larger than the Sun's gravitational potential at the Earth's distance, and yet the latter can keep the Earth in its orbit.

It cannot be excludd that luminal speed according to c² = 2GM_u/R_u is essentially determined and limited by the gravitational potential of distant masses (subscript u). Notably, Einstein 1911 found light deflection close to the Sun to result from locally enhanced gravitational potential.

So it also cannot be excluded that electromagnetic properties of vacuum space according to 1/(ε₀µ₀) = 2GM_u/R_u are essentially determined by the gravitational potential from distant masses.

Accidentally or not, it appears noticeable that the potential energy of a mass m at the gravitational potential of the universal masses approximately corresponds to the relativistic energy equivalent E = mc².

Finally, a characteristic deceleration observed on rapidly spinning rotors also indicates a possible interaction with distant masses.

We know that our star, the Sun loses about 10^-14 of its mass per year as a result of electromagnetic radiation and particle emission. That reduction in mass should show up as a decreasing gravitational red shift. Same thing should happen to entire galaxies. But isn't it true that the galaxies we observe that are farther from Earth are also the younger we see (because light has taken millions of years more to come to us) and, as a consequence the more massive when we consider entire galaxies? (Because we cannot possibly see them as they are, but as they were millions of years ago.) Shouldn't we expect, correspondingly that the gravitational red shift of an observed galaxy will increase with its distance to Earth?

Herbert Dingle's argument is as follows (1950):

According to the theory, if you have two exactly similar clocks, A and B, and one is moving with respect to the other, they must work at different rates,i.e. one works more slowly than the other. But the theory also requires that you cannot distinguish which clock is the 'moving' one; it is equally true to say that A rests while B moves and that B rests while A moves. The question therefore arises: how does one determine, 3 consistently with the theory, which clock works the more slowly? Unless the question is answerable, the theory unavoidably requires that A works more slowly than B and B more slowly than A - which it requires no super- intelligence to see is impossible. Now, clearly, a theory that requires an impossibility cannot be true, and scientific integrity requires, therefore, either that the question just posed shall be answered, or else that the theory shall be acknowledged to be false.

No gravitational wave was measured yet, no graviton was detected accordingly. On the other hand no space- time curvature was observable. There is no successful experiment to validate the current theories. What is the nature of the mysterious gravity? What is the velocity of this effect ?

Fundamental Physics Research is intended to explore the grand maze of the unknown. Throughout the last century, Physicists have occupied themselves with working out Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, Particle Physics, Astrophysics and Cosmology in all their implications. In the process, Fundamental Physics has absorbed mathematical ideas and notions of increasing sophistication and abstraction. The tragedy of the last century was the gradual shift in our focus from the physical reality to the abstract mathematical formulations, which are supposed to describe physical reality. We appear to have been steadily indoctrinated into believing that due to complexity of physical reality, we can not even demand deeper understanding and mental visualization of the basic phenomena in quantum mechanical world. Now we are stuck in plethora of unfounded Belief Systems which are hindering any real progress in Fundamental Physics Research. On the other hand, Applied Physics is supported by physical or experimental feedback as well as mental visualization. As such Applied Physics never gets stuck in abstract mathematical formulations or unfounded Belief Systems.

As a consequence, Fundamental Physics researchers have inadvertently adopted certain abstract mathematical concepts into their physical worldview. For example, the notions of virtual particles, exchange theory of interaction, probability density representing instantaneous particle location, spacetime curvature, Black Holes, Big Bang, metric expansion of Space, etc. are truly abstract mathematical concepts which have been erroneously adopted in our physical worldview as physical realities. Experimental proofs and validations of such physically unacceptable mathematical concepts are often claimed through erroneous interpretation of raw observations. Agreed that Fundamental Research does require a lot of mathematical support, but the end results of any complex mathematical processing must be applicable to the physical world and hence must come within the grasp of human mind and mental visualization.

Perhaps, it is a part of Human Nature that we find ourselves so prone to mass indoctrination by dominant vested interest groups in all fields. Our inherent capacity to use Logic and Reason gets restricted or diminished under such a state of mass indoctrination and we involuntarily join 'Group Thinking'. Fundamental Research is one such area where indoctrination of innocent students and mass hypnosis of general public is inhibiting the use of Reason and Logic for discarding erroneous beliefs like Black Holes, Big Bang, probability waves, spacetime curvature etc.

In my opinion, Fundamental Physics Research is currently plagued by three dominant syndromes.

(a) "Emperor's New Clothes" Syndrome.

Throughout the last century, Industrial development and technological advancements remained in the public limelight and won public acclaim. However, Fundamental Physics research being of somewhat abstract and slow, could not compete with engineering and technology for winning public limelight and appreciation. As such, Fundamental Physics researchers instinctively started adopting highly abstract but sensational models of Nature, that could attract public attention in wonder and amazement, to win higher public acclaim in comparison with technological advancements. The adoption of highly abstract and sensational models in Fundamental Physics research for gaining public limelight, represents "Emperor's New Clothes" Syndrome. This approach has been adopted by the mainstream Physics community and sensational models of Black Holes, gravitational waves, Big Bang, weird QM models, particle entanglement, metric expansion of space etc. all represent this syndrome. These highly illogical but sensational models of Nature have now got embedded in permanent Belief Systems of the Scientific Community.

(b) "Six Blind Men and the Elephant" Syndrome.

If we represent the Nature by the proverbial 'Elephant', then the popular tale of "Six Blind Men and the Elephant" aptly highlights the current state of Fundamental Physics research. The six blind men in the popular tale could be represented by the researchers in the fields of Astrophysics, Particle Physics, Quantum Physics, Relativity Physics, Gravitational Physics and Cosmology. Just as in the popular tale, all researchers are extremely busy in making appropriate observations and making most sophisticated models thereof to represent Nature - 'The Elephant'. Many of such models have won public applaud and even Nobel Prizes. However, making models from raw observations, without necessary physical insight, often leads to fallacious Belief systems that defy Logic and Reason. Prominent examples of Models in this category are - Black Holes, Big Bang, Gravitational Waves, Spacetime Curvature, Length Contraction, Time Dilation, Fields without medium, Exchange Theory of Interaction, Probability Density representing instantaneous electron location, Atomic Orbitals, Metric Expansion of Space, Quantum Gravity, Particle Entanglement, etc. etc.

(c) "A Frog in the Well" Syndrome.

In spite of tens of thousands of advanced research papers being published every year, there is hardly any perceptible advancement in Fundamental Physics. One reason is that under the current system of research dissemination, it is virtually impossible for any researcher to know about the research contributions of all other researchers. Second reason is that when a researcher develops a model of certain aspect of Nature, due to long mental association and efforts put in, the model tends to get embedded in one's permanent Belief System. Accordingly, each researcher will tend to develop a personal Belief system which will act as a Benchmark for evaluating the models or contributions of all other researchers. In the absence of any centralized or common research dissemination and evaluation system, the individual Belief systems will constitute a "A Frog in the Well" Syndrome, which is a great hinderance for any advancement in Fundamental Physics Research. Most independent researchers are likely to be affected by this syndrome.

Under the circumstances, even if a few researchers do put up valuable research contributions for advancement of Fundamental Physics, we cannot distinguish their voices from the background noise. In my opinion, one possible way to put the Fundamental Physics Research back on the Right Track, is to appoint an International Experts Panel for Research Evaluation, by co-opting experts from various specialist and multi-disciplinary fields. This Panel may Evaluate and Grade all published research papers that may be referred to it by various research bodies (like ResearchGate) and academic institutes. Only High Grade research papers may then be released to public media for wider dissemination.

Learned researchers are requested to give their considered opinion on the issue of "What exactly is wrong with Fundamental Physics Research?" and how to rectify the situation.

My question is: "What are the major and most effective refutations of Albert Einstein's Theories of Relativity?"

The question "Is Any Effective Refutation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity Possible?" which was asked on April 2, 2018, has been declared closed. Many of the best Answers were probably posted at the beginning, in April of 2018, long before I joined Research Gate on the recommendation of some of my university colleagues. Out of respect for the initiator of the original Question, who states his decision to close his Question, I am posting a very similar question in the interest of accommodating the views of scientists who have not yet had an opportunity to answer the Question, and, possibly, the repeated and updated views of scientists who have already posted on the original Question at Research Gate from April 2, 2018, to December 2019.