It is false, as for example photons have energy, but no mass.
And they really don't, to an extremely high precision. If they had, the electric field would go something like ~ 1/r^2*exp(-a r) for some a>0, but actually it goes like ~1/r^2 without the exponential factor. Because the electric field is so strong, this can be tested very easily. So when he claims "no energy without mass" I'd like to see some evidence.
And it goes on like that. Electromagnetic radiation does not require the presence of matter. And Äther-theories have long since been falsified, as they break Lorenz invariance.
Earth formerly had a lower gravity? Seriously?
Also, his statement that we cannot ignore the electric force in the universe is, true. No cosmologist ignores any of the known long-range forces. It's a matter of fact, though, that there are two electric charges: positive and negative, and only one gravitational charge. That's why, even though the gravitational force is some 10^37 times weaker than the electric force, it dominates on cosmological scales, because it can accumulate.

Sure, I can only state theories, but at least they've been tested. It's not as if he was talking about the ultimate frontier of current research.

You're right in telling me off for my harsh words, but I don't like people ignoring basic facts without proof for their "better" theories.

edit: just looked him up. Funny how they create their own scientific world outside of the "mainstream". Their own journals, medals, etc.. if they'd be really convincing, I'm sure they could publish to serious journals. Somehow this looks like Uri Geller who doesn't want his "magic" to be acknowledged.