You haven't proved anything.
You have just reworded your original claim.
Just as I suspected, pre ignored the evidence provided.
I gave a link to De Pretto's paper, where he published his derivation of e=mc2. I even provided the paragraph in which he explicitly states underlying assumptions:
a) Kinetic energy = mv
2 (which is wrong), and
b) the vibrational energy of atoms would be equal to the speed of the aether (AKA speed of light).
That, pre, is what is called proof in the real world - the authors statements, written by their own hand, as it was published in the very journal
you have cited.
I am somewhat curious though, in your deranged mind, what exactly would qualify as proof? Does De Pretto have to rise form the dead and tell you he made those assumptions?
PROVE your claim that De Pretto's e=mc2 was due to a misreading of the equation for kinetic energy.
I did - I provided you with a link to the full-text version of his paper in which he derives e=mc2, AND even quoted the specific paragraph in which he outlines his claims.
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.
Sorry, you've failed basic science again. The formula for kinetic energy was first established by Newton back in the mid 1600's. His derivation, which was measured as momentum, was correct - with the momentum of a system being equal to the m*v of each element in the system. Leibniz's derivation was based on the incorrect assumtion that kinetic energy s not conserved. His value, mv2, was also not for kinetic energy, but rather for vis viva; a now defunct idea about energy based on the assumption that energy is not conserved. Thomas Young resolved this conflict in 1807, in which he derived the correct Ek=1/2mv2.
So De Pretto should have known damned well the correct formula; it was first proposed by Newton roughly 200 years prior to his publication, and was proven correct (and thus Leibniz's formulation proven wrong) nearly 100 years prior to his publication.
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.
LOL, you've clearly never worked in the sciences...reviewers get it wrong as often as they get it right.
Besides, in De Pretto's time peer review was pretty much non-extent. Einstein and Planks seminal works were not peer reviewed; outside of medicine, peer review didn't become common until the 1930's.
I'm thinking you should read a book on the history of science before you post again - all you've demonstrated in this post is a profound ignorance of the development of some of the more basic scientific principals around...although your precedent is one of scientific ignorance.
Bryan
