>> > How can 0.5*mv^2 be negative?
>>
>> When you have to supply positive 0.5*mv^2 to it to bring it to zero.
>
> Please show me values of m and v which you would plug into
> 0.5*mv^2 to get a negative result.

m = 1
v = i0.70710678118654752440084436210485 where i = sqrt(-1)

>
>> > Are you talking about total energy?
>>
>> Is there some other kind between a launch pad and an obect?
>
> There is no "kind between a launch pad and an object".
>
> Objects have KE and they have PE, the sum of which is
> Total Energy. I think you're confusing total energy with KE.
>
> KE is 0.5*mv^2 and can't be negative.

If you say so, Blind Pew. You can't help being a phuckwit.

>
>> > Work was done on both of them.
>>
>> Negative work.
>
> No, positive work.

No, negative work.

>
>> > In the frame of the launch pad, the pad had 0 energy before and
>> > 0 after. The rocket had 0 before and positive KE after.
>>
>> Negative after.
>
> No, positive after. Moving objects have positive kinetic energy.

No, negative after. Objects moving away have negative energy. Objects 
approaching have positive energy.

>
>> Aren't there some probes that are never coming back? Something about
>>  "escape velocity"?
>
> Yes, because their POSITIVE kinetic energy is greater than their
> NEGATIVE potential energy,

Oh, they have NEGATIVE energy then, but not negative energy.
Sorry, I forgot to put it in capitals.
Please show me values of m and v which you would plug into
0.5*mv^2 to get a NEGATIVE result.

> for a TOTAL energy which is more
> than zero. (Here PE is defined to be zero at infinity and negative
> at all finite distances).

Only Blind Pew the stooopid cunt and his tin god and huckster Einstein are 
allowed to create definitions. Fucking moron. Idiotic imbecile. Relativist 
cretin.
Fuck off, you pompous, arrogant arsehole.
[rest snipped, I can do that too]
Black Knight.