[dleviwing]

Unlike time and space, matter does not have an intuitive axiomatic concept or definition.

Matter is something that occupies space and can be perceived by one or more senses; a physical body or the universe as a whole. In physics it is an entity displaying gravitation and inertia when at rest as well as when in motion.

This definition implies an intuitive understanding of our universe and infers that matter cannot exist without displaying gravitation and inertia at some condition of rest and motion. Let's provide an absolute definition for matter and state that "Matter is the fundamental substance of the universe". This doesn't seem to invoke awe and amazement, but it does invoke a vision of something that everything is made of and this is the only physical stuff of the universe. As such we must redefine our notions of mass and energy.

Absolute Matter is the fundamental substance of which all physical entities acquire form and existence. Only the Void exists as a separate entity within an infinite cosmos.

To assign physical properties to a phenomena under this definition, you need to define the physical (physics) mechanics of actions and interaction of matter. This demands cause-and-effect, as opposed to only using empirical data of measurements in producing a mathematical equation to allow us to predict events and motions of material objects. This basically was science before the proliferation and the abuse of Relativity by media and pseudo science.

It would be to the advantage of science to develop equations without also requiring the creation of a new science to interpret them. This was the practice set down by both Relativity and Quantum theory; Do we now allow this process to repeat itself again with "String Theory"? Let's keep the math and get rid of the bizarre interpretations of the mathematical terms.