Thank you, Bkuehlhorn, for this good reply.

"Separating energy and matter seems key to this response. That is observably false."

That conclusion is not fully correct.

My mother told me as a kid that a dog is an animal, but that an animal is not automatically a dog.

So, I can see you are reasoning correctly in one direction, but you fail to see that the reasoning is much weaker in the other direction. You make both of one and the same quality, hiding the truth in plain sight.

There is nothing wrong with E=MC2, but it needs to be read correctly. It is only correct for the relationship between E and MC2. It does not declare the whole of E. Hence, others talk about Dark Energy. I call it original energy.

I hope you finally see now what scientists are not doing correctly. They are not (yet) assessing the whole truth. They are assessing the local truths as they perceive them and try to lift them in top position, warping the truth just as you did in your reply by making “dog = animal” and not think about it twice. And when they go toward the right conclusions (such as envisioning dark energy), they hold themselves back because they can't see it. They don't trust their brains.

Scientists have always been detailed thinkers. They are not good overall thinkers.

--

Matter cannot be the 100% result of whatever it was that existed prior. If it were possible to have a result be the 100% of what was prior, then that result would not have lasted more than 15 minutes tops before returning to the prior state.