Not only is it difficult but almost impossible to teach R.L. Anything.

Johannes Blabbered: "Improvements can also be made to most theories, for instance, by modifying Einstein's formula to read E=(u/k)C the fundamental functions within matter may be better understood. But it is up to scientific experiments to 'prove' that this formulation is superior to the previous formulation."

Have you gone through the derivation?

Yes. First I derived enough information about Einstein's formulas so that I could comprehend the meaning of the symbols that he used to express various phenomenon.
As I became to understand the symbols; "E" or perhaps it was "e" (was long ago, my memory is failing) represents the phenomenon known as "Energy" or perhaps it was "energy". I paid more attention to the meaning behind the words than the convention of representing it in a formula.
For the explanation here I am going to use capital letters to represent the fundamental phenomenon. So: E is energy, M is mass, C is a constant, and ^2 is a square, or the function of raising the preceding number to the second power, or multiplying the number by itself.
The 'constant' or C was taken as the speed of light, and that speed has been measured to be about 300,000 kilometers per second.
At this point in my learning curve I could use the formula E=MC^2 to calculate the amount of energy that any amount of mass could contain, all I needed to do was to take the figure for the speed of light, multiply that figure by itself and then multiply the result by the amount of mass, and the resulting figure would represent the quantity of 'energy' that the mass contains. I still did not know what the fundamental 'structure' of 'energy' or 'mass' was, but at least I could use the calculations as a reference to the quantities involved.

Through intuition, I could comprehend 'mass' as being something that can be seen, touched, measured, expanded and compressed, in other words 'that something' that has density.
Similarly I could understand 'energy' as being the ability to do work, but 'work' can not be done without motion, which brings the concept of 'kinetic energy' to mean 'the movement of mass' and the concept of 'potential energy' as 'the ability to cause mass to move'.
These were the first thoughts that went through my mind about mass and energy. As I studied the subject further, a better understanding evolved, but since R.L's 'scientific' comprehension does not contain the words 'model' or 'hypothesis', I can not explain them here.

The reason why Albert squared the universal speed limit in his formula, was a mystery to me for a long time. My first reaction was to question the reason for having a 'speed' that was faster than the supposed limit. After 'working' on the problem for many days, I finally understood it.
Since my explanation would deviate from the 'normal' and mathematical explanation that has been given by others, I will refrain from explaining it here. (The explanation might offend those that know everything.)

It is a mathematical fact that a derivative of a constant equals zero. Perhaps Robert or Nick can explain how that applies to the formula of E=MC^2.

Einstein arrived at E=MC^2 through brilliance and hard work- two things you are allergic to-
I agree with you on Einstein's brilliance and work. My questions are: Are you against 'energy' conservation? What is 'hard work'? How do you know that I am allergic to two things?

and it has been proven _many_ times, it arises naturally as a result of very straightforward calculation...

I can explain why the speed of light must be squared in Einstein's formula, perhaps you can give us your understanding of the reason.

But you know better, just like your inane "the atmosphere is going away!" theory... you can be scientifically proven to wrong by MANY orders of magnitude many times and many ways, (remember I wasted time doing just that), yet even though you are either too lazy or too ignorant to do the math yourself you insist that you are right and the laws of reality just don't matter!

To summarize that argument: Is it fair to say that your point is; that nuclear fission in the Earth's atmosphere can not impart kinetic energy to the atmospheric molecules? (No math needed, just a yes or no answer.)

At this moment in time I only have two claims to that "theory".
1) Earth is loosing atmospheric molecules to space. (And most likely has been doing so for its total existence.)
2) IF the kinetic energy of the atmospheric molecules is increased, then there will be an increase of the molecular loss into space.

Keep smiling
Johannes