Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: David Canzi <dmcanzi@uwaterloo.ca>
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: Down with e=mcc up with e=0.5mvvN(N-k)
Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 12:27:08 -0400
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 30
Message-ID: <v6mcos$1vobu$1@dont-email.me>
References: <cel9lk-q9sg.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
 <cmaclk-qbdk.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
 <d005f9ab78865db97d173eb5638c14a3@www.novabbs.com>
 <leim3oFq4asU1@mid.individual.net>
 <2222c43775e520228c1cf40786424435@www.novabbs.com>
 <06telk-jcsn.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
 <e33f14d8977190b22c067ce4ca07175e@www.novabbs.com>
 <pr4glk-gsip.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
 <02797b9bc51252f1f2d1cca6e42735e3@www.novabbs.com>
 <v6k04b$1g2g6$1@dont-email.me> <0sd0mk-q79h1.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
 <v6k82e$1hcdb$1@dont-email.me> <kpo0mk-cooh1.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Injection-Date: Wed, 10 Jul 2024 18:27:09 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="15c114006270916fd30b687b0e3a65d0";
	logging-data="2089342"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/fOXjdWryA6cNQQtsHmR/0"
User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird
Cancel-Lock: sha1:IZKqJ5/WxcRWgqu48b0ilQWY+xc=
In-Reply-To: <kpo0mk-cooh1.ln1@gonzo.specsol.net>
Content-Language: en-US
Bytes: 2699

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.