[LeGrande]

No, it’s not just a constant, it is a set constant with a value attached to it, the speed of light in a vacuum. You’re going to change it to “1”?

So far you’ve been wrong in all the replies you’ve sent me,

LOL, From your quote "We would have found the same relation between mass and energy even if we had considered energy emitted in a form other than light, although it might have made the math more difficult." That is in complete agreement : )

And again, "the mass of an object is a measure of how much energy it contains." Again E=M, elegant really : )

Did you even bother reading your two quotes : )

[count-your-change]

Again you choose to leave out essential parts of the quote and since you read the quote, why is that?

“.. . ..he concluded that whenever an object emits an amount of energy L of any type, its mass diminishes by L/c2, so that the mass of an object is a measure of how much energy it contains.” (from my quote)

“And again, “the mass of an object is a measure of how much energy it contains.” Again E=M, elegant really : )”
(your quote)

Nothing elegant about what you’ve done, but the question is why? Why try to make the physicist say something he did not?

“That is in complete agreement : )”

Not when you leave out part of the equation. All the fellow was saying was that an equivalent to C squared could be used not that it could be ignored.

But you know that, don’t you?
So the question is: Why?