Just about everything I've told you is robust rock-solid physics where I can refer directly to Einstein or some other reliable source. Sadly when I say the speed of light varies and here's Einstein saying it, some people here oppose it tooth and claw and make specious assertions that it's out of context or cherry-picking, when it isn't.
Here we agree about the observable, clocks measuring time to pass at different rates, and we agree on the conclusion, the energy density of the local environment governs the rate that clocks will measure time passing; it is the rate that clocks tick, and not the rate that time passes that is variable. We agree to that extent.
But we agree for different reasons. Both of our reasons are alternative hypotheses, not rock solid physics, even though we could both point to generally accepted science that our ideas are consistent with, and that serve as departure points from accepted theory into new hypotheses; the new hypotheses are what makes it appropriate Alternative Theories material.
You can fight the mainstream from the perspective that you have it right and your views are supposed to be mainstream, but you have no evidence that the rest of us don't have, and mainstream is a consensus, not a declaration.
Einstein gave most of the "how" of it, but people dismiss Einstein and come out with cargo-cult popscience nonsense like light follows geodesics in curved space time. This is wrong on so many counts. For example, curved spacetime relates to the second derivative of potential, and tidal force. The force of gravity depends on the spacetime "tilt" which is the first derivative of potential. And spacetime is a static abstract thing where the time dimension is depicted as another space dimension. There's no motion in spacetime. Light doesn't move through it. You can draw geodesics in spacetime, but light doesn't move along them. The notion that it does confuses cause and effect. You will not find Einstein saying that.
This is a declaration, not a consensus.
I gave it, you somehow missed it. Space and energy are the same thing, and space is like a ghostly gin-clear elastic jelly. A concentration of energy is like injecting more space into a region of space. It's like injecting jelly into a block of jelly. You create a pressure gradient in the jelly. A density gradient.
This sounds too much like pop culture rhetoric than some scientific break through. You are talking about the medium of space, filled with energy, instead of some medium that fills space and carries waves; with the waves bringing the energy to the medium of space.
Permeability. Permittivity is like "how easy is it to bend space". Permeability is like "how strong it bounces back". Both of these characteristics determine wave speed as per the expression c = √(1/ε0μ0). They're also feature in vacuum impedance Z0 = √(μ0/ε0). Impedance is like resistance, but for alternating current rather than direct current. A light wave is alternating displacement current. See Taming Light at the Nanoscale:
This is theory that has no mechanics. We all can see how light acts in different mediums, the observations, and we know there is some physics going on, but to say what we observe, and to explain it with mechanics are two different things. We don't know how it works, or what governs the speed of light through various mediums, and it seems simplistic to rely on the "light is absorbed and re-emitted" explanation. When you consider the intersecting fields, the bonds in the medium, and the preciseness of the repeatable measurements, it becomes more complicated than "absorbed and re-emitted".
Resistance to alternating displacement current. Impedance is. But there's no energy loss like you see in resistance to conduction current in a wire.
That is because the physics is different; impedance and permittivity are the not the same and so comparing them doesn't make a good analogy.
A light wave is a "pulse" of energy propagating through space at c, whatever c is.
Yes, it is, in my hypothesis too; the wave propagates spherically at the local speed of light, based on the energy density of the local medium. But photons have both a particle nature and a wave nature, and how we detect those states depends on how we set up to observe them, and yet it is reasonable to consider that they have both states at all times.
Again it's like you inject space into space. The photon has a gravitational field. IMHO the best way to think of this is to say the photon's gravitational field is the reaction to action h in E=hf.
My view is that there is a connection between light and gravity, which I described in the fringe. I'm not sure it is entirely appropriate for you and I to discuss it here because it picks up at the point that your hypothesis fails, i.e. the lack of any mechanistic explanation, which moves us away from consensus mainstream discussion (oops, we are way past that line in the sand, lol).
.
