Johannes spewed:

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

Trust me on these subjects you can teach me nothing!

On if he had done the derivation of E=mc^2

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.

Johannes has mastered the ability of symbolic thought! This puts him on the same footing as neanderthals... Unfortunately he does not understand what is involved in a derivation.

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.

First off, the formula is actually only valid for an object at rest-it is the special case of a slightly more complicated formula, secondly it comes from two postulates:
1) The speed of light is a constant.
2) The laws of physics are the same in all reference frames.

You seem to feel Einstein just woke up one day and wrote it down, but it is the end result of rigorous mathmatical reasoning.

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.

My scientific comprehension goes far beyond:"OH! OH! Wouldn't it be so cool if the universe was this way? I think I will firmly believe that it IS this way- despite the fact many grade schoolers can prove me wrong!"
My vocabulary does contain the words 'model' or 'hypothesis' and you fail to meet the definition of either.

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.

Again, Einstein had no choice- it is the result of mathematics and logic!

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.)

You mean others that actually gon through the mathematical derivation? Others that have taken graduate level courses on the subject? Others that actually KNOW what they are talking about?

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.

No, you can't... I have gone through the derivation and starting with those two postulates and the Lorentz transformations it comes out very naturally...

But I have only had more courses than I can count that required knowledge of relativity, and only gave an hour long talk on how anti-Hydrogen could be used to test the standard model and general relativity- followed by a grilling by tenured professors- How can I possibly challenge your notions on the subject, after all you ARE apparently certain you are right!

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.)

Yes, I answered this before and used math and facts to prove definatively that you are off by something like 10^12 orders of magnitude... You refuse to do any math showing you arent...