You haven't proved anything.
You have just reworded your original claim.
PROVE your claim that De Pretto's e=mc2 was due to a misreading of the equation for kinetic energy.And this statement, from one of your sources, shows how
bogus your claim is.
"The nonrelativistic kinetic energy formula did not always include the traditional factor of 1/2, since Leibniz introduced kinetic energy without it, and the 1/2 is largely conventional in prerelativistic physics."So, the factor of 1/2 was optional (perhaps even unconventional) when talking about kinetic energy at the time De Pretto wrote his papers. It is nowadays conventional to include it.
When you say that De Pretto made a foolish mistake, concerning e=mc2, in his papers (plural), you are saying that the papers referees (plural) also made that foolish mistake, which is unlikely.
Is it more likely that De Pretto and the referees of his two papers were wrong, or that ImagingGeek is wrong?
Yes, it seems that ImagingGeek is wrong once again.
