R.L. said
MC^2 is the rest mass energy- the energy contained in some arbitrary lump of mass that is just sitting there doing nothing- say like your brain. This lump of mass is not moving or accelerating- it does not change with time, therefore BY DEFINITION the time derivative is zero.

There seems to be a profound difference between your understanding and my understanding of the fundamental meaning of Einstein's formula. I find this interesting, and would like to explore the differences further.
When you state that, "MC^2 is the rest mass energy", I find myself wondering if I should respond to you in the manner that you respond to me. I could respond by saying that; mass at rest, containing energy, is an oxymoron. Or I could say that perhaps you lack the oxy and are total m…….. But that would only confuse the issue at hand.
Perhaps your understanding of the word energy is different from my understanding of the word. I will instead, ask you to define the fundamental meaning of the word energy. Please explain how you understand the seemingly contradictory statement that you made.
In my understanding the word *energy* involves the capacity for work or vigorous activity, such capacity is not possible without movement of some type. My intention is to apply your description to the smallest possible unit of mass, whatever that unit maybe called.

Now, your problem is you have unthinkingly latched onto this relatively uninteresting special case of an object at rest- If the object is moving or accelerating the formula becomes more complex and can indeed be a function of time.. ARE YOU SIMPLY TO IGNORANT TO UNDERSTAND THIS?!

It may be possible that you are talking about Newtonian physics of motion and I am talking about Einstein's fundamental physics.

You have not "derived" anything, zip, zilch, nada... all you have done is embarrass yourself in public.

What facts do you base these assertions on?

" I think that everyone should understand how nature works at the fundamental level. "
I agree, and the way you do that is by educating yourself, and that happens by listening to those that know what they are talking about- NOT by latching onto something with complete ignorance and refusing to accept you are wrong.

Not only do I agree, but I would add that one must also ask questions and remember that science marches on and yesterdays understanding is a stepping stone for tomorrow's knowledge.

I agree that the mathematical fact applies perfectly to the formula. The 'truth' can not be denied, except by not understanding what the truth is. My point is that if you can not express the 'truth' in simple or non mathematical terminology, then perhaps you do not understand the 'truth'.

What complete garbage! I can explain mant aspects of relativity in english, but until you go through the math and logic and see how it so naturally, and inevitably must be true YOU are never going to truly understand it- Sorry, but thats just the way it is, you may not feel it is fair, tough... You may try to accept that some of us worked countless hours, took dozens of classes, and studied years for a reason- we had to learn the language and rules of science first to truly understand it fundamentally.

I agree that It takes time effort and work to accomplish something.
The development of my understanding of this particular subject has taken over forty years, and I am still learning.

It goes far beyond what you do... I feel sorry for you- you obviously desperately need to feel you've accomplished something, that you know a deeper truth, but the sad fact is you don't, and unless you are willing to work at it and learn from others you never will.

No need to feel sorry for me, I know what I have accomplished and I am quite comfortable with that accomplishment. It makes no difference to me weather you or anyone else believes me. I can be quite content just smiling at the attempts of others to obtain the deeper understanding that I already have.
It is interesting that you believe yourself to be right and that you try to belittle my efforts to understand the laws of nature, even though you do not understand what my view point is

Not an Ad hominem just two questions. Does it make you feel 'superior' when you try to belittle or "stomp" on someone, or is it some other type of a psychiatric problem? Have you noticed that war with words, or the real thing, can be intensified by arrogant posturing?

You are the arrogant one here, you are the one that seems to think reality caters to your whim...

I am curious: How did you arrive at that conclusion? Do you think that your method of communication has anything to do with the way I reply to your posturing?

Keep smiling
Johannes