Excellent article.. Nice to give us some more natural interpretations for observations considered as "clear" and "known" like electric charges and electromagnetic waves (previous article).

We use terms like "charged particles emit electromagnetic waves (waves of electromagentic field)" but... What kind of particles? Charged with what? Waves of what? Fields? What is electromagnetic "field"? Does it naturally exists (like matter)? There are so many unknowns in this sentence. Actually, it is just a "model" (approximation) for an observation, not a natural explanation, like this article.

However, the simple and natural reduction of all (either of small or large scale) observations (electromagnetism, light, nuclearenergy, black holes etc..) to our well-known gravity (force, energy) and naturally existing matter (dense bodies infinitely small or large) which move-function under the simple laws of classical mechanics (system balance-imbalance), can give us truly elegant and natural interpretations. Maths and models are a very useful tool to calculate and give us precision to an interpretation so as to compare, predict or control natural observations, not to give interpretations. What we should logically rely on to describe-explain an observation is matter and gravity and analogy (which is actually our human logic) as the only self-existing and building blocks of the universe, at least as we see it as humans.