E=mc²: Einstein Explains His Famous Formula

Why physi­cists don’t say: ‘ poten­tial mass/energy E=Mc^2’ ?

Accord­ing to SRT rest mass and rest ener­gy have equiv­a­lent
mean­ing: E= Mc^2 or M= Ec^2.
Why SRT and Quan­tum the­o­ry use word:’ rest mass /energy E= Mc^2 ‘
and don’t say: ‘ poten­tial mass/energy E= Mc^2 ’ ?

When some­body says ‘ the par­ti­cle in the rest . . .’, then we
can image that par­ti­cle was going maybe to sleep, maybe
to have a cup of cof­fee . . . . etc.
That a strange ter­mi­nol­o­gy the physi­cists use.
======== .
My opin­ion.

In Clas­sic physics there is ‘ poten­tial ener­gy’ and
there is ‘ kinet­ic ener­gy’.
And „The Law of Con­ser­va­tion and Trans­for­ma­tion of
Energy/ Mass” con­nects them togeth­er.

In Quan­tum physics the ’rest mass/enegy’ looks as a sta­t­ic fac­tor.
I think that there is prob­lem here.
Because in QT there is ’rest mass/enegy E=Mc^2’ and
there is active / kinet­ic ener­gy E=hf. But how „The Law of
Con­ser­va­tion and Trans­for­ma­tion of Energy/ Mass“
can unite them togeth­er nobody explains.

In oth­er words:
Dont know how to explain trans­forms the pote­nial
mass/enegy E=Mc^2 into the active / kinet­ic ener­gy E=hf
the physic­sts began to use new ter­mi­nol­o­gy and new words.
================== . .
Socra­tus.
http://www.worldnpa.org/php2/index.php?tab0=Sci…
===================== . .

Going back to the Einstein’s ques­tion.

In his Mir­a­cle 1905 Ein­stein wrote the Fourth paper:
“ On the Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics of mov­ing Bod­ies.” ( SRT).
And as a post­script to his forth, the Fifth paper:
“ Does the iner­tia of a body depend upon its ener­gy con­tent?”
Some months lat­er he real­ized the answer :
‘ Yes, iner­tia depends on its ener­gy E= Mc^2.
The Elec­tro­dy­nam­ics Bod­ies in iner­tial move­ment have
ener­gy E= Mc^2 — ( hid­den ener­gy E= Mc^2)’
#
The same Einstein’s ques­tion in a lit­tle detail inter­pre­ta­tion:
“Does the iner­tia of a body ( for exam­ple: of a light quan­ta
or of an elec­tron) depend upon its ener­gy con­tent E=Mc^2 ?”
Think­ing log­i­cal­ly, the answer must be : Yes, it depends.
When new ques­tion arise:
How is pos­si­ble to under­stand the con­nec­tion
between E=Mc^2 and the ‘ iner­tia of a body’ ?
============== . .
P.S.
Some­one wrote to me:
“An old pro­fes­sor of mine used to say
that any­one who can answer that ques­tion
what iner­tia is , would win a Nobel Prize. “
! !
==========.
Best wish­es.
Israel Sadovnik. Socra­tus
=========================. .

I AGAIN DECODE UNCLE EINSTEIN
E=Mc＾2/MacCabe.

Sig­naech­er: HIRH. 1Ti Wong Swee Loke