Okay, read it a bit more thoroughly... I think it makes sense. Kind of along lines I was already thinking.

"Heat, which is really the relative excitation levels of atomic structures interacting is one of the ways this energy is absorbed by other fields. It simply means that these particles cannot as quickly discharge their subharmonic waveform payload and carry this energy until they can discharge it into compatible surrounding structures."

So, on some level, my pebble-in-stream model wasn't entirely off base?

The idea of the pebble bombarded by directional speed (velocity) from the stream or flow of water, will tend to absorb the kinetic energy and transmit it again as well as it can back into the medium. It's only when this ability to absorb and re-transmit energy is maxed out or overwhelmed that the total internal energy starts to go up.

IE, energy input exceeds output, so internal energy begins to rise.

Hence my thought that mass was simply a function of how well something can absorb and re-emit energy... By sufficiently receiving and re-transmitting imparted energy, overall position/velocity don't change. Hence acceleration is resisted. That actually makes sense to me.

IE, if it can absorb and re-emit energy faster than energy is imparted, its overall acceleration/velocity will remin relatively unaffected (a few atoms or particles internally may be overwhelmed and be jostled, but that jostle is lost in the overall structure as energy is dissipated or divided between a number of particles, and the structure as a whole does not move).

But if the structure as a whole cannot absorb and re-emit the full amount of energy imparted, then whatever excess energy exists (that can't be re-emitted) will remain internally bound and add to the overall energy and/or velocity of the system, until such time as the energy can be successfully re-emitted. Once it can re-emit the excess energy, it will reach equilibrium with its surroundings again.

That seems like a fairly straightforward approach to it... Maybe too simplistic. But it seems to be somewhat what you said, I think.

"All energy is in constant motion. Acceleration is the influx of energy into another structure, via these waveforms interacting, and relative to surrounding field structures, it accelerates and changes its position. Its trajectory is a vector. As it decelerates, it is because these wave forms of energy have passed into surrounding structures or fields."

Well, acceleration is a change in velocity. I'd tend to say that the influx of energy is more akin to force or work than acceleration, though acceleration may well be the end result of the influx once the work is done. Splitting hairs, but yeah, I know what ya' mean. :)

"math is just a tool we use to help conceptualize these material interactions. Math, equations and their many component principles and elements can never quite work like real life, where ALL these functions occur and are at work, simultaneously and where undoubtedly many other factors we have not yet identified are also at work."

Spot on. I think that's kind of what I was trying to say in some of the philosophizing in other section of the thread. Math is a tool. Math isn't reality. We can use it to attempt to approximate/model reality.

However, in the final analysis, use of math includes both symbolic and natural language as well as conceptualization. So, I don't think it's fair to say that math is the only way to express what's going on. Our mental processes and conceptualization and inner monologue are all tied to language centers, conceptualization I think is also tied to the visual center and maybe some other stuff. So, I think some of the folks were a little off base saying that math can't be expressed in real language or we don't need definitions or whatever. We need definitions in order to understand what the math describes. If we have no definitions, three can be no understanding and all the symbols just become characters on a page. But that's a bit more philosophical than I want to wax, at this point.

Anywho, I appreciate your response(s). They seem to be pretty well reasoned, & well-read. Plus they're understandable in real terms. Kudos. =o] Might have to do a bit more reading.