As mentioned many times now, gravimotion’s goal is to describe Nature in terms of physical occurrences, events or facts; physics' science describes these in mathematical format, which ignores their physical constitution. And that last point goes along Newton’s remark that while mathematics matches reality it doesn’t say what is reality.

Dirac, whose equation is at the base of all of particle physics, said:
"The main object of physical science is not the provision of pictures, but is the formulation of laws governing phenomena and the applications of these laws to the discovery of new phenomena. If a picture exists, so much the better; but whether a picture exists or not is a matter of only secondary importance."
While the main object of physical science as presented by Dirac is no doubt shared by all, his lack of interest about a picture of it is definitely not shared by at least one person, this writer!
The assertion about the irrelevance of picture in science, even though from Dirac, is frankly unacceptable when science's mathematics is contradicting itself! In science a "picture" of space cannot be drawn because space is at same time absolutely empty and full of energy! If that is a matter of secondary importance to physicists it is not to me! The quantum vacuum, full of frantic energy, makes a mockery of the mathematical interpretation of Michelson and Morley famous experiment of the 1890's, which proves there is no ether, and which is still honored by physicists as it justifies the absolute speed of light.
The lack of "picture" of space in physics is due to a lack of realistic consideration; a lack of pragmatism on 2 very distinct fronts that are the physical world and physics very own mathematical world.
And the question; "Is science fiction?" is definitely appropriate in the case of space. A question that might have come to your mind, is that in view of the difficulties we human have to enforce our own human laws, how do the Natural laws get enforced seemingly just like that (apparently needing no executive government)? My own brain entices me to think that something mightier than my thinking (that is mightier than our human mathematics) is nevertheless constantly making sure that the Natural laws are constantly enforced!
That is a dilemma any interpretation of Nature has to face! And a dilemma not explained by gravimotion.

Whether gravimotion’s united field interpretation is true or not, gravimotion is definitely not the final answer! Physics interpretation of Nature rests on the notion of rest that is on the succession in time of successive inert states! Physics concept is that there are "states" that follow each other in time, and that 2 consecutive states are not connected (the essence of entropy and more recently of the chaos theory).
Gravimotion's interpretation is the mirror image of that or the opposite of it; only one finite present mo(ve)ment is re-occurring indefinitely between 2 of physics alleged static states that have no longer any raison d'être in gravimotion.

One could argue that an illustration of physics' concept is found at our scale in the projection and display of movies. The process involves still pictures or frames (paralleling entropy states), which when projected in consecutive "time instants", provide the "illusion" that motion "occurs"; and as such that the motion observed between 2 instants in time doesn’t occur, just as interpreted in science. In the end contradicting gravimotion's claim that changes only occur and that there is nothing static.
The "projection time" of a still picture, no matter how brief though, has to last a finite time because it is occurring; and that sends the ball back into gravimotion's side! The motion observed at the movies is illusion alright, yet that doesn't put in question the true fabric of space as being present mo(ve)ments.

Another problem of gravimotion is in its interpretation of the electron. The electron repulsive gravity mandates that a neutron be lighter than a proton. Physics’ specifications are clear on that matter; a neutron is instead heavier than a proton.
The electron has been kept as is in gravimotion because mass doesn’t exist in gravimotion. Yet physics measurements very likely coincide to reality, and that is a blow to gravimotion’s interpretation.

Another problem yet with gravimotion might be its motion-quantum, which has not been verified or observed physically. But on that point gravimotion's motion-quantum is at least not worse than physics energy-quanta and strings! Treating space, gravitation, light and all that occurs (rather than all that exists) as pure motion, highlights gravimotion's elegant unified interpretation of Nature!
The weakness of gravimotion is the lack of its own mathematical theory, the lack of its own particle physics, the lack of its own experiments.
Yet that is somewhat counterbalanced noting that most of gravimotion's unconventional ideas are actually fitting the physical infrastructure that is behind physics mathematics.
And that has to provide gravimotion's interpretation of Nature some credibility.
Physicists nevertheless shun gravimotion, because (in my opinion) it highlights, contradicts and offers solutions to physics inconsistencies such as the 2 contradictory interpretations of space highlighted in §8.1 above.
On other shaky grounds, because physicists are also at odds with each other, gravimotion in its dissenting stance goes along physicists!

While making everything emerging out of motion is unorthodox, gravimotion has at least the advantage to be a unified interpretation of Nature!