Pre, you know your claims are pure BS. Ignoring the vast array of math and physics which shows your merging worlds theory to be bupkis does not count as a victory.

I suspect De Pretto's case is going to be more of the same - you'll simply ignore all the evidence that runs contrary to your beliefs; despite the fact the evidence of de pretto's errors can be found within his writings.

None-the-less, here we go. De Pretto's work was published and the full text of his work is still available today, both scans of the origonal paper, as well as OCR'd text:
http://www.cartesio-episteme.net/st/mem-depr-vf.htm

The basis of his idea is outlined in the following paragraph.

Ogni particella d'etere ha un impulso proprio, indipendente dalle altre; l'urto che determina contro le particelle della materia, è rappresentato dalla forza viva, cioè dal prodotto della massa pel quadrato della velocità, secondo la formula mv2. Le particelle d'etere per la loro estrema piccolezza, si possono considerare come infinitamente piccole; ma tali in realtà non possono essere e quindi una massa m pur estremamente piccola, devono ad ogni modo rappresentare. Data l'enorme velocità di movimento di tali particelle, non inferiore certamente a quella della luce che è di trecento milioni di metri per secondo, essendo in tal modo il termine v2 della formula rappresentato da un 9 seguito da 16 zeri, si comprende che m x v2 cioè la forza viva di ogni particella, possa risultare abbastanza sensibile e che la somma di tutte le infinite spinte possa dar ragione dell'attrazione e della coesione e perciò si intuisce quanta energia si celi in questo fluido universale.
The long and short, De Pretto assumed that the kinetic energy of a particle is determined by m*v2 (which is wrong, its 0.5*m*v2). His idea is simply that the vibrational speed of atoms must be the same as the speed of aether particles* (i.e. the speed of light), and therefore their energy would be equal to mc2.

*Normally I'd ridicule the use of aether, but in De Pretto's time this idea still had a medicorum of scientific support, so we'll just let that pass...

So as I said before, the equation he derived is correct, but his rationalisation is wrong, meaning that scientifically speaking his findings are of little value. Wikipedia has a great article on the derivation of mass-energy equivalency, including discussion of the various scientists who laid the groundwork that Einstein used to derive mass-energy equivalency from the correct physical principals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass-energy_equivalence#History

A more detailed essay on De Pretto's work, and what he based his information on, can be found at mathpages:
http://www.mathpages.com/rr/s8-08/8-08.htm

Bryan

UAA...CAUGCUAUGAUGGAACGAACAAUUAUGGAA