BW: I think your labels are upside down. It is the "idealism" that matter requires motion that is in error, not the evident fact that heat falls with diminishing electron interaction. I do think it's a mistake to equate "zero heat emissions" with zero election collisions, even if there is zero atomic entropy. In UT, it is practically impossible to stop all motion, simply because the precision of aiming fundamental particles to cause that result bumps up against UP.
TSW: "... the mere multiplication of a term for matter and a term for motion really does not guarantee their conceptual unification any more than the designation of matter and motion as separate terms guarantees their physical independence."
BW: ... nor their conceptual or physical *dependence*. I'll agree to "inseparability", but not the dependence of matter on motion.
TSW: "... the all-too-common, but misleading, view that matter is equivalent to energy. This cannot be true because the term for matter (mass) in Einstein‘s equation never appears without the term for motion (velocity of light squared)."
BW: True, but (as noted above) Einstein's equation certainly suggests that matter (mass) increases with increased velocity, to a specific finite limit: c² (the only velocity that isn't relative in SRT). Even Feynman, who I greatly admire, believes that the mass of particles increase with velocity in linear accelerators. (It does, but only because it is acquiring mass from the matter in magnetic fields.)
Next: Inseparability Part 3 of 5