The Universe can be objectively defined as matter in motion

For my final argument I would like to zoom out from the matter/energy argument and instead focus on my initial claim: The most objective way to define the Universe is matter in motion. From this statement I derived a formula, Universe = Elementary Particles (matter) + Fundamental Forces (motion). Con astutely noticed that I forgot about space. Con is absolutely right. Space should be included in that definition and I foolishly took for granted that space was a given. So here is my revised formula for the simplest, most objective way to define the Universe. Universe = Space + Matter + Motion Up to this point in the debate, I don't believe this has been proven untrue. Furthermore, Con has yet to provided a better definition that proves to be more objective. Regarding the energy/matter sub argument. Con believes that energy is the most fundamental property of the Universe and that it does not consist of matter. He talks about how physicists define it as the ability for matter to do work, a force that is transferred from one object to the next. Essentially, what Con, and many physicist believe, is that energy is what gives life to matter. It's what causes it to move. Hot items (high energy) are more active than low energy items. The ability to work means the ability to move. The ability to interact, or affect, is the ability to move. Basically, energy could be defined as the cause of motion. On a side note, I believe there to be a different cause for motion, the fundamental force of balance. This is a theory of mine which I explored in a previous debate titled, The Purpose of All Things in Motion is to Seek Balance. But aside from that, let's just say that energy is massless, and it is the cause of all motion. That would still comply with my definition. Just substitute "motion" for the more specific term "energy," or you could sub in the physicists preferred cause of motion, "the four fundamental forces," or my preferred cause, "balance. " Either way, these are all attempting to define the same thing, motion. From an observational perspective we can only be sure of two things that occur everywhere in the Universe, there is stuff in space, and that stuff is moving. The stuff in space is about as objective as it gets; however, the moving part is what's difficult to define. That is why I believe the most simplistic, objective way to define it, is to simply refer to it as movement, or motion. When you start delving into the cause of that movement (energy, balance, force fields, etc. ), it becomes more complex, and less objective. But no one can argue that motion is an inaccurate description of what that matter is doing. So, the challenge for Con is 1) Proving that my definition of the Universe: Space + Matter + Motion, is inadequate, and 2) defining the missing or inaccurate components of my definition, and how those components cannot be classified as either space, matter, or an agent of motion. According to Cons definition of the Universe, Universe = vacuum (space) + energy, Con believes that there is only space and energy. Since energy has no mass and doesn't occupy space, according to Con, how can it be the only thing that exists. Clearly there are objects with varying degrees of mass and space occupation. If Con says that those items are made of a lot of energy, I would say zero multiplied by a trillion is still zero. If energy consists of no matter, then no amount of energy could construct even the smallest particle of matter. In closing, the equation, Universe = Space + Matter + Motion, accurately and objectively encompasses every aspect of the Universe. I believe that everything in existence can be classified as either space, a particle of matter, or an agent of motion. I now leave it up to Con show that either one of those categories does not belong, or that there are other categories that are missing.