Could we include Frequency on E = mc²?

Question

Do these equations make any sense?

$E = mc²$ 
$E = h.f$ 
$f = \frac{1}{\Delta t}$

f = Frequency

$$c² = \frac{d²}{t²}$$

$$c² = \frac{d²}{t} * \frac{1}{t}$$
if $\Delta t$ is equal to $t$, then we have E=mc², if different, we have $E =m . \frac{d²}{t} . f$

Equaling both Energy Equations:

$$h.f = m.c²$$
$$h.f = m . \frac{d²}{t} . f$$
$$h = m.\frac{d²}{t}$$
$h = d².\frac{m}{t}$ => happens to be the same units of Plancks Constant. 
 $m²\frac{kg}{s}$

Throwing "h" again in the formula of E = h.f:

$$E = d².\frac{m}{t}.f$$
OR
$$E = m.\frac{d²}{t} . f$$
That could be also seen as:
$$E = m. \frac{d²}{t} . \frac{1}{\Delta t}$$
IF, $\Delta t$ is equal to t:
$$E = m.\frac{d²}{t²}$$
and since $v² = \frac{d²}{t²}$ and  $c² = v²$:

$$E = mc²$$

Is there something wrong with these equations? 

Comments

Your assumed equation $E=hf$, due to Planck 1900, already shows that frequency is linked to energy. Its huge implications are already well-known.

Your rewriting of the equations is empty play.

---

@Arnold, i know that he already showed it, but what im trying to show is that his equations would fit anything, including Einstein's that is a special case of Planck's where time and frequency are synced.

Is right to afirm that? that they are both the same equation?

---

They are different equation, and to make them look the same you need additional input. 

---

Arnold, I have prepared a informal paper with the ideas. Do you want to take a look a it?

---

No, your calculations are empty of meaning.

---

Could please tell me why this is wrong? is the math completely wrong? or you not agree with the conception?

---

you conclude with one of the hypotheses. By construction, the conclusion is true, even if the details are not checked. However, what it is the interest of this performance ?