I'm a bit puzzled by your response.
When I map physics in a nursery rhyme I am not rubbishing anyone; your insights are highly intelligent.
Richard Feynman was a leading physicist and he openly admitted that quantum electrodynamics was like playing Chinese Chequers; that the most succesful theory in moern physics was "ridiculuous" and involved "adding little arrows on a piece of paper".
(See "QED. The Strange Theory Of Light And Matter" by Richard Feynman; a book aimed at lay people.)
Who says it has to be hard or complicated?
My comments ARE constructive; but incomplete (wait for the detail).
Please do not think you have to have a phD to play physics (I didn't do enough work to pass my first University year in physics; I skiied though).
What is intelligence? Seems to involve "navigation". Given a difficult puzzle; a highly intelligent person will see how to navigate through it. Babies are intrinsically very good navigators because they seem to be relatively non-judgemental and open to "what exists".
Honesty gives access to ultra-hi IQ to anyone.
To decode modern physics into nursery rhyme simplicity can be about transparency; about seeing the first principles.
I do not mean to detract from originality in your post; I just saw you were "on the case"; you had insight; and I, off the top of my head, gave an indication based on stuff I have been working on why I thought your post was "on the case".