In classical physics, the speed and time are this relationship, v=s / t, and when we look at this formula, the speed is determined by the quotient of distance and time, and knowing the distance and time can know the speed, However, if the speed (v) affects the time (t), that is, the result (v) in turn affects the reason (t), then t in the formula changes because of the result (v), and the change in t affects v, v affects t,..., so it goes on. Is this formula still useful? In this formula, v and t cannot affect each other, given one of them can calculate another value, but they cannot affect each other, otherwise the formula can't be used for the calculation. Because when you calculate the value of v, you have to consider that v actually affects t, and then you have to substitute t to calculate v, and then v affects t. It can be seen from this formula that t is the "ruler" of measuring speed. If the ruler itself is affected by the object of measurement, which is v, is the ruler still useful? So, relativity and Newtonian mechanics are contradictory.

In this formula, v=s / t, the values of time and speed are determined by each other, but, they do not affect each other, which is different, if time and speed affect each other, then the formula is useless. In classical physics, the default time t is constant, using it as a ruler to calculate and measure speed, which is also the meaning of time being invented. Time is the common definition of human, human actually with the provisions of the "time can not change", you see, all races, all human, from long ago, the default time can not change, because the human regard it as a ruler, if the ruler changes, the ruler and what use? Time can not be defined according to the shock cycle of an atom, it can not be defined as time by the speed of movement, and time itself is used to measure speed, how can speed be used to define time? In other words, the scientific community is now wrong to define time by atomic oscillation cycles.

In fact, relativity has always been similar to the electromagnetic field. The weak field approximation has equations like gravity electromagnetism, namely Oliver's equations, the gravitational field equations built based on the structure of Maxwell's equations. The relativity calculation of the "starlight deflection" also uses the gravitational potential equation with the same structure as the Gaussian theorem. Relativity is everywhere in analogy with electromagnetic fields. So why not just use Oliver's formula? Because Michelson's Etheric wind experiment believed that there was no electromagnetic medium, Einstein looked for an explanation to build a equations of gravitational field after Maxwell's equations. But what if Michelson's experiment was flawed? What if every planet has an ether, and this ether this planet is relatively static? So how did Michelson's experiment measure the ether? For example, there is ether around the earth, but the ether and the earth are relatively stationary, there is ether around the sun,But this ether and the sun are relatively static, Mars has its own ether, and Jupiter has its own ether, which are both relatively static to their respective planets. It is feasible to analogy the theory of electromagnetism to establish gravity, because relativity is also similar to electromagnetism to build various mathematical models to calculate, it has been afraid to directly use the equation structure of electromagnetism because no medium is found.

Of course, the theory of relativity is also due to various paradoxes of electromagnetism, such as Faraday's law of electromagnetic induction paradox, whether the motion or no movement of the magnet produces an induced electric field, this is a paradox, the magnet movement has an induced electric field, without movement, there is no electric field, However, the magnet motion or no motion is determined by the relative motion of the observer and the magnet, creating a paradox. There are many such paradoxes in electromagnetism. Einstein is because to see these paradoxes and establish relativity to solve, unfortunately, when Michelson's experiment that there is no ether, Einstein too believe in the results of the experiment, so he did not add a medium as a frame of reference to electromagnetic field, but using the method of "reference frame transformation" to solve the paradox of electromagnetism.

In any case, adding the medium to an electromagnetic field as a reference frame is more natural than Einstein's "reference frame transformation", and using the medium as a reference frame is not contradictory to both Newtonian and quantum mechanics（Relativity is contradictory with quantum mechanics and Newtonian mechanics, so it cannot be unified with quantum mechanics.）, because they are both flat spacetime. The only question to be solved is is there an ether?

You can't explain gravity as electromagnetism (considering the mass like an electric charge) because the gravitational energy is way too small to be able to explain the inertia. However I managed to find another way to connect them, a little unusual but one that give good results, by presuming that the vacuum parameters (the electric permittivity and the magnetic permeability) are influenced by the gravitational potential. So they become variable in space ( as a scalar field in small Newtonian gravity, and as tensorial fields in more general case). Actually this variation in space of the vacuum parameters can be considered as being the gravity itself since they lead to a "heavy" electromagnetic force that will produce the attraction between mases. It can eliminate the electromagnetic "paradoxes" related to relative movement and also explain many gravitational phenomena without the need for the theory of relativity distorted space-time.

This is a speculative theory, not proven yet that may be wrong. It can be found here on researchgate:

(PDF) Connection between Gravity and Electromagnetism (researchgate.net)

Octavian Balaci

Thank you for your paper. I mean, comparing gravitational and electromagnetic fields and then building a theory is not to link the two.

“…Establishing "gravity electromagnetism" similar to Oliver Heaviside, is his theory of gravity no better oriented than Einstein's theory of relativity? More natural, more rational….”

- in that above that some theory of Gravity that would be similar to classical electrodynamics would also be more natural, more rational than the GR is quite correct, Gravity fundamentally is nothing else than the “fourth” fundamental Nature force – as that the Electric Force is, while, as that is rigorously scientifically proven in the in the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s informational physical model, 3 main papers are

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/354418793_The_Informational_Conception_and_the_Base_of_Physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355361749_The_informational_physical_model_and_fundamental_problems_in_physics

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/369357747_The_informational_model_-Nuclear_Force

- the postulated in the GR as real interactions in systems “mass-spacetime-mass” fundamentally cannot, and so don’t exist.

Though the wording "gravity electromagnetism" looks as rather vague one, Gravity and Electric Forces are fundamentally different Forces, and so any "gravity electromagnetism" fundamentally doesn’t exist. However yeah, the Forces are rather similar, and so the “gravitomagnetic” force well probably exists at motion of gravitational charges – “gravitational masses”.

And that

"…The speed of light doesn't change" is too weird, too supernatural.….”

- is really a vague wording. The “speed of light” is real fundamental constant in Matter, since everything in Matter is/are some disturbances in the Matter’s the Matter’s ultimate base – the (at least) [4+4+1]4D dense lattice of primary elementary logical structures – (at least) [4+4+1]4D binary reversible fundamental logical elements [FLE],

- which is placed in the corresponding Matter’s fundamentally absolute, fundamentally continuous, fundamentally flat, and fundamentally “Cartesian”, (at least) [4+4+1]4D spacetime with metrics (at least) (cτ,X,Y,Z, g,w,e,s,ct) – which fundamentally cannot be impacted/transformed by anything in Matter, and fundamentally cannot impact on/affect anything in Matter.

At that FLE “size” and “FLE binary flip time” are Planck length, lP, and Planck time, tP, and the speed of light c= lP/tP.

More about what Gravity Force is see the Shevchenko-Tokarevsky’s 2007 Planck scale initial model of Gravity and Electric Forces in the 2-nd link above, the section 6. “Mediation of the fundamental forces in complex systems”, or in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/365437307_The_informational_model_-_Gravity_and_Electric_Forces

To read the comment to the model in SS posts in

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Can_kinetic_and_gravitational_potential_energy_could_both_be_zero_and_can_gravitational_potential_energy_be_equal_to_kinetic_energy/1it is useful as well.

Cheers