Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)

On 7/9/24 18:05, Jim Pennino wrote:

David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

On 7/9/24 14:58, Jim Pennino wrote:

David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca> wrote:

On 7/3/24 20:38, bertietaylor wrote:

The nonsense that is e=mcc cannot be glorified with the exponential
operator and an extra letter.
Arindam's contraction to e=mcc shows his disdain.

>
Arindam has used this same disdainful gesture on his own
formula that he offers as a superior alternative to E=mcc

>
This is Arindam.

>
It isn't always necessary to say so.

 True, it is pretty obvious to anyone paying attention, but most people
don't pay any attention to your posts, Aridam.

If replacing c^2 with cc in Einstein's formula is Arindam's way of
expressing disdain for Einstein's formula, what are we to make of
the fact that Arindam's formula, e=0.5mVVN(N-k), contains VV instead
of V^2?  Is he disdaining his own formula?
That's the point I was trying to make, but you didn't read far
enough or think over what I wrote well enough to understand
the contradiction I was pointing out.
You're not very bright, are you.