No, you are playing with words, Andy. You are not seriously considering the frameworks in which we must work.

I don't mind you trying, but I will have to place this back on your plate immediately. You are misbehaving in the communication department.

First off, let me declare that E=MC2 is actually inaccurate. It is MC2=E.

A dog is an animal, but an animal is not automatically a dog.

MC2=E, but E is not automatically MC2. We do not have all energy in MC2 fashion because there is energy that is not of matter. It is not possible that all energy became matter because that reality would have reverted back to the original state within seconds. Only parts of all energy could have become matter.

So, we have a certainty in one direction (a dog is an animal), but we have a questionable certainty in the other direction (we do have an animal, but the uncertainty is whether it is a dog or not).

You are also playing with the word matter. It really does not matter if matter is the result of wave action or something else. What matters is that there is a result that at some level is solid. I can't walk through a wall because the reality is that the material outcome I am myself will not tolerate that move through a wall, nor will a wall allow me passage either. I don't care one bit whatsoever how you want to call it. I am not interested in word games. I can't walk through a wall. That is our reality, and the fact that some matter can combine and be absorbed does not undermine the knowledge that I can't walk through a wall.

Let me reiterate that the truth cannot be declared unless a word or fact is placed in its appropriate context. Blue is not known to be something precise unless we declare the circumstance for that word (paint store, on the couch with the shrink).

In other words, we must always have a foundation for what we are saying, and that foundation better be good.

Let me declare what I see you doing here.

You picked a concept (space) and you picked a circumstance (motion) as vehicle, and then you declared it real and usable. The worst part is that you did not establish a foundation. You picked it, considered it valuable, and you ran with it.

That is freewheeling.

You swat Gödel's work away as if it is nothing, and you are actually not bringing anything to support that action. Undermine it if you can, please, but you can't declare it as something that does not have value and then not bring anything to support that action other than your words and an empty position in which you pronounce your words.

I have additional support, also from the foundation of math that I discovered myself (conclusion: zero is always there), but let's now focus on what I am saying:

Breakage is fundamental in the universe we live in.

Using Gödel's words in light of matter, he said that matter has two conflicting behaviors:

* Convergent

* Divergent

With a planet and star, we see a completed convergent action for matter, a single mass is formed.

With a solar system or galaxy, we see the attempt to converge, though circumstances prevent the various masses from becoming one. Still, the entire setting can be declared as one (group), involved in convergence.

Move to anything larger than a galaxy and there is no convergence among all matter. We find the lack of convergence (divergence or whatever we want to call it).

It cannot be pointed out in more simple manner: Breakage is a fundamental aspect in our material universe.

You are not accepting that truth in your framework. You have not made breakage fundamental in your presentation. Your storyline does not include breakage.

No one can declare that the shattered pieces of a Vase are the same as the Vase. No one. And we know that the pieces are shattered.

That is a truth, Andy. You have to incorporate the shattered pieces of the Vase in your storyline. You can't talk about motion and space as if they are the Vase. You cannot make one what is not (no longer) one.

With breakage fundamental, we can look for the parts where this breakage is expressed/shows up.

The simple example I often use is writing a person's name on an envelope, an address, city, country, Earth, Solar System, Milky Way, Universe. The postal person will be thankful for every piece of information, except for the word universe. It did not give any direction at all for the postal person.

Universe is a word that exists in its own category. It does not behave like the other words behave. Breakage is hiding in this word.

The foundation of the word universe is based on the collective of all that exists; it is not a unit itself.

Matter does not have a relationship with the universe. Matter relates to planet, star, solar system, galaxy, and that is where the trace ends. We can point to the Great Attractor, but we don't have all too much there, and for certain we cannot point to the universe and find a relationship for matter that has any specific universal value.

Breakage, Andy. Breakage.

--

I use my words very carefully. If you have questions, I can elaborate. My words all belong in a specific context.

For instance, I can declare that the universe we live in is infinite because I understand space to be infinite. This says nothing about matter or anything else in the universe, but it does declare the ultimate size of the universe because space is part and parcel of the universe.

In another example, I cannot support the idea that the universe is eternal because the word cannot be used. Prior to the appearance of matter, we may suggest an eternal setting, and after the appearance of matter, we can suggest that this new condition remains in place eternally. Yet the appearance of matter declares that the word eternal cannot be applied to all at all times, because we have a fundamental change, some 13.8 billion years ago. The foundation changed. The foundation of the universe we live in is not an eternal foundation.

Words, Andy. Your words must be supported. Find support for your words, and either I will change my tone then, or you will change your vision. Find the support and we can discuss.

And, no, you cannot undermine words pronounced in their context, such as Gödel's Incompleteness Theorems. They are correct in their context, and they even show that mathematics is an Incompleteness as well, a confirmation therefore. If only physicists would recognize that, then they would see that physics is an Incompleteness, too.

Let me say the word one more time: breakage.