Can we really discribe motion without matter?

So...This is not a homework post...(By the way, professor, could you give us a title format, like adding a few words before title, so that we could distinguish our posts for HW and for spontaneous thoughts? )

After Thursday's class, I've been thinking--why we weren't able to escape from the odd trap of using verbal-noun (gerund)?

Personally speaking, I believe it is because the noun is the source of the motion. I mean, the noun produced the motion, right? The motion itself can be describe by one or a few words, like "running", "flying"...etc. I don't know why this quantum physicist was so into this motion-centered idea, and I think it's really not necessary.

In my junior high physics class, my teacher introduced a concept:"motion is eternal while stability is relative." I may have translated it badly--the meaning of the words could be lost easily during translation--because in Chinese this sentence was a poet-like motto. The main idea was that everyone, everything in this universe is moving, and you can only discribe one thing as stable because it can only be stable relative to sth. else. (This may explain why the physicist focus on motion so much.) But everytime we studied a form of motion, accelerated or not, we draw diagrams, and in the diagrams, the major object is represented by a dot, or a square.

Therefore, even in physics, the major object could be represented, but could not be eliminated. Similarly, in language, the noun denotes the thing we are looking at. Even if we simply provide a verb in our daily language, we automatically imagine something that is producing that specific motion, or else we'll have no clue to picture what it is like.

Also I believe that gerund is in fact an excellent form of words that focus on motion--it actually make the motion the center of a sentence and possesses some features of both verb and noun.  In English, there are also some verbs and nouns have close relationship, e.g. cycling and bicycle. In classical languages like Latin(although I haven't learnt much), there are different cases of a noun to illustrate a state of the noun and the direction of motion (e.g. to a place and from a place can be distinguished by different suffixes of a word). The people who spoke classical Latin might have developed the declensions due to the actions that were the most important to them. For more example, In Chinese, nowadays, using a traditional noun as a verb or omit a noun is extremely popular on the internet. I believe that the feeling of "flowing" in a language is actually resulted from the perception of a group of people in the same social and nature environmental, not the creation of a subjective idea.

So,in my opinion, nouns and verbs are naturally correlated, and they are not divided when we describe a motion, a state, etc. Without matter, discussing the motion is intriguing, yet meaningless.