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.

Do you realize just how stupid what youre saying sounds?

J:"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. "

NO it is not an oxymoron! That is the whole point! If you have an antiproton at rest and it annihilates with a proton at rest you get energy, and the amount of the energy is related to the original mass by Einstein's equation. You understand less than nothing on this subject...

You are clearly wrong on this, experiment and theory blow you out of the water, end of game. You can say what you want it will NOT change the fact that you are hopelessly wrong... You claim you have studied this for 40 years- I knew enough to see your claims are full of holes when I was 12!

R.L.: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?!

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

No I am talking about special and general relativity, If you weren't a complete numbskull on the subject you would know that!

I'll address the rest of your drivel later- I have _real_ science to do tonight...