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

not graduate+ level. Users with 500+ reputation may vote here to close. 

PhysicsOverflow is a site for advanced physics. Please ask elementary 
questions in other online platforms that value such questions. 

---

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 ?

---

If this is true, we can afirm that frequency is linked to energy.

There could be huge implications in my point of view.. 

First of all implications: The 2 formulas of energy (considering mass, and considering wave), are now a single formula[ E = (m.d²/t) . f ], and E=mc² is a special case, where time and  frequency are synced.

h=d².m/t, (constant of Planck) is already considered as the energy of a foton in rest(not vibrating), and by that logic, any material, would have its own constant, meaning that this equation could be applied in any case: from quarks to galons of water..

I know it must be wrong, but i  when thought about it and the "math matched",... I needed someone else to take a look into it.

---

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.