Far out cosmology: cosmic strings exist? (Introduction)

by dhw, Saturday, April 28, 2018, 11:06 (2189 days ago) @ David Turell

DAVID: Perhaps you did read this and doubt their theoretical conclusions. All the while you believe a very few scientists who believe cells are intelligent, when the cells are most likely automatically following intelligent instructions in the information they contain to manage living.

dhw: My questions have absolutely nothing to do with cellular intelligence, and I am in no position even to discuss the researchers’ theoretical conclusions! I simply don’t understand how “pure” energy can have weight. And I don’t understand how a crack or “thread” can be thinner than an atom (i.e. materially measurable), "contain" all this energy, and yet not itself be part of the material universe. You haven’t answered either of my questions, so maybe you don’t understand either.

DAVID: The initial singularity which was the proposed start of the universe was pure energy and of enormous weight equal to that of the universe itself. That's the theorists point of view, that energy has weight!

I googled and found this, which seems to indicate that energy can only have weight when it turns into material. It’s a bit beyond me, but I’m sure you will understand it.

Does energy have weight ? The answer is ... no | Naked ...
https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=71719.0

Does energy have weight? The answer is ... no
Does passive time have weight? The answer is no
But, when passive time merges with energy, material is created.
The material has weight. (DHW’S BOLD)
The weight of this material is its passive energy, which is distinguished with a simple spring.
Passive energy does not participate in the energy conservation law.
The passive energy of matter comes from its energy, which merges with passive time.
It is indeed a wondrous wonder. The material is created from two "abstract things" passive time and energy,

DAVID: As for the cell theorists I'm simply pointing what is good for the goose is good for the gander. You sincerely believe some scientists when they fit your desired point of view, but then question others.

Steady! I offer it as a hypothesis which makes sense to me, but I haven’t yet reached the point of “sincere belief”. It is you who “sincerely believe” those scientists who fit your desired point of view, which is a perfectly natural thing to do anyway!