No, Dutch Uncle's statement is entirely reasonable and plausible.
No. They deny the purpose of a natural constant, and conflates such a constant with the relation itself. It's a math error.
The point of searching for a long-hoped for Theory of Everything is based on the premise that there should be less of these messy little physical constants, and the cosmos should supposedly be able to be explained from first principles involving the direct properties of energy and matter.
Okay. Let's look at this 'Theory of Everything'.
Should such an equation even be conceived? What would it look like? What good would it do? Assuming such an equation existed, you could simulate everything in the universe but how do you know if your simulation is correct? How do you know the equation is even correct? We already HAVE a universe.
A theory of science MUST be falsifiable. That is, you must be able to test it against it's null hypothesis (in other words, to try to break it). That test MUST be practical, available, specific, and produce a specific result.
It is NOT the purpose of science to discover a Theory of Everything. The purpose of science is to explain (that's what a theory is...an explanatory argument). It may use various models (simplified structures and isolated examples) to make it's explanation, such as how light CAN be bent by the effects of gravity, or how a cannonball follows a parabolic trajectory, or how an explosive reaction occurs in chemistry.
The purpose of science is to summarize and explain what is observed by someone, or to extend a previous explanation into new areas.
Science is a set of falsifiable theories. That's it. That's all. A theory may come from anywhere. It may come from observation, from dreams while you are asleep, from watching an episode of Sponge Bob, literally ANYWHERE.
A theory is an explanatory argument. A theory of science is a falsifiable explanatory argument (in other words, it has been tested at least once to try to break it). As long as a theory can withstand such tests, it is automatically part of the body of science. It will remain so until it is eventually falsified.
Galileo falsified the theory that the Earth was the center of the Universe (first put forth by the Greeks).
Kepler and Tycho falsified the theory that planets and other objects in space followed circular paths (another one that came from the Greeks).
The Greeks knew that planets (including ours) was spherical. Better measurements have shown that planets (including ours) are spheriod, not perfect spheres.
It was earlier Greeks that came up with the concept of a flat or disc shaped Earth. By about 320 AD, that was shown to be wrong (by Greeks).
Newton didn't falsify anything, but tied the work of Galileo, Kepler, and Descartes together, formulating a law of motion that brought all of that work into one equation.
Since then, the idea of a 'universal equation' has wandered around.
Newton thought that there was such a thing as a zero speed (like an absolute). Einstein falsified that theory, but NO OTHER THEORY of Newton. As Einstein said, "It's all relative". There is no zero speed. Zero is literally what you want to say it is. Speed is just a measurement relative to something else.
By extending this theory to light itself, using a model, he was able to show that light itself is affected by gravity, and indirectly, showed that photons DO have mass under certain circumstances (such as when they are slowed or absorbed). The speed of light is slower through materials than it is in open space (very slightly). The slower the photon, the more mass it appears to have.
This led him to his special theory of relativity, explaining light and how time is affected by it.
The speed of light in a vacuum has never been measured. For most work, 300,000km/sec is used. It's close to the measurements we do have (which we know aren't accurate).
Reality is not a fabric. This word is defined in philosophy, like 'religion' and 'science'. There is no 'absolute reality'.
