The Universe can be objectively defined as matter in motion

I think what is energy, what is matter, are good questions to ask. We can notice how they interact within the world, we can notice what they do, but what are they on a fundamental level is still in question. What is energy? What is matter? We are in disagreement over these questions. If matter is everything, and energy doesn't exist, than what is matter made of? Other matter. What is that made of? Other matter. What is that matter made of? Other matter. We fall into an infinite regress. The same seems true with energy. What is energy? Other types of energy. What is that energy? Other types of energy. Both sides seems to have a similar issue with the fundamental makings of both. Maybe we should look at the definitions. Matter [1] 1. The substance of which any physical object consists of 2. Physical substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous 3. Something that occupies space 4. A particular kind of substance. Energy [2] "In physics, energy is a property of objects, transferable among them via fundamental interactions, which can be converted into different forms but not created or destroyed." "Work and heat are two categories of processes or mechanisms that transfer a given amount of energy." "Common forms include the kinetic energy of a moving object, the radiant energy carried by light and other electromagnetic radiation, the potential energy stored by virtue of the position of an object in a force field..." Matter definition three: Something that occupies space. In the Standard Model of Particle physics, bosons don't occupy space. Based on the definitions of matter and energy, a boson isn't considered matter. Bosons are force carriers, yet don't meet the definition of matter. A magnetic field has force in it, but it doesn't need to have matter in the field. Force fields aren't considered matter. Atoms are largely force fields, strong force, weak force. Most of an atom is made of something that doesn't meet the defintion of matter. Matter definition two: Physical substance in general, whether solid, liquid, or gaseous. Once again, in the Standard Model a photon has no mass, doesn't occupy any space, and isn't solid, liquid, or gas. A photon (of which the universe is filled with, flying about in various energy frequencies) isn't considered matter. We see from the above definitions, that one aspect of energy, is that it does work. (Based on sourced definitions) This aspect isn't included in the definition of matter. If we were to go out into the voids between galaxy clusters, we would find nothing the matches the definition of matter. But we would find vacuum energy that is doing work, driving distant galaxies apart, and most likely a direct player in the expansion of the universe. By definition this dominating force isn't matter, it is some form of energy and it makes up 73% of the universe. The physics community seems to accept that there is a clear difference between energy and matter. They seem directly linked, as the splitting of the atom demonstrates. But they are understood to be different things. Whether it's Einstein's equation, E=MC2, Einstein seems to think energy exists. Or all the others, Maxwell, Faraday, Bohr, Feynman, who find energy a significant player in the universe. I haven't seen any writings from these pillars of physics that argue matter is the fundamental player in the universe. Ordinary matter, that matter of which we are made, the matter of which we are familiar, contains large amounts of energy. If we can go out to the void, find no matter, and find an abundance of energy, then travel to the the densest star, and find matter which contains enormous amounts of energy, it seems to me, it is energy that is the most prevalent. Energy exists where matter doesn't, the voids, matter exist along with energy within in physical substances. We have energy everywhere, to varying degrees, and we don't have matter everywhere. (based on definitions) This seems to me to point to energy as being a more fundamental property than matter. The debate began with the position that the "Universe can be objectively defined as matter in motion." This definition of the universe seems to leave out the two most fundamental components of the universe. First and foremost, space. Without space, there is no universe, no matter, no energy. Space must be a key player in any definition of the universe. And then there is energy. We can find energy in matter. We can find energy where there is no matter. It seems as though energy also fills all points in space. Where there is nothing, we have vacuum energy. Where there is matter, we also have energy. I think this places energy above matter and should supersede matter in the definition. 1. http://dictionary.reference.com... 2. http://en.wikipedia.org...