This is the mere phenomenal description of the equation, without any insight into its physical meaning and causal relations.

However, the following triangle explains much more:

(mc)2 = (moc)2 + (mv)2, where mo - the resting mass.

Its resolution just gives the mass-function against speed (v), as the initial origin of the famous Einstein's equation.

Has someone any additional question?

Quote: "This is the mere phenomenal description of the equation, without any insight into its physical meaning and causal relations."

Maybe there is some insight into its physical meaning and causal relations:

Article From E=mc2 in normal space to E=m0cIcK in the complex config...

Your argument is very complex and hard to follow. However, according to the above rectangular triangle, the symbol c does not concern the speed of light, but that of the cosmic process along temporal axis. Not incidentally, the two speeds are equal.

Actually, it concerns the speed of light in two perpendicular directions of the electromagnetic oscillation of the stable energy quantum that makes up the rest mass of the electron.

As explained in the paper, these two speeds will be reached but cannot exceed the speed of light, because at maximum extent in both direction, the speed of the energy momentarily falls to zero before starting to move in the reverse direction to again reach c before slowing down again toward zero at maximum extent in the reverse direction.

All references are given and can be mathematically verified.

I understand that the explanation appears complex and hard to follow, but this is only due to unfamiliarity with the new underlying space geometry.

If you are really interested and read again, understanding will progressively set in.

The above explanation is not sufficiently convincing to be the stimulus for the reading of the mentioned text. The discussion must be self-understandable, without any references. In any case, I have downloaded it. However, I do not understand its abstract.

Well, the references I am talking about are the historical papers from Newton, Gamow, Searle, Wien, Kaufmann, Lorentz, Einstein, de Broglie, Marmet and many others that report the experimental findings on which the explanation is grounded. Most of them are now in the public domain and in free access for people to read

But of course, interest must be sufficient for potential readers to really dig in.

Have a nice day, André

Branko V. Mišković > "The meaning of E = mc2 ?"

This equation itself has no meaning! For a meaningful understanding please see the following three publications:

New Physics II – Quantum-Dialectical Derivation of New Mass-Energy Relation Invalidates Einstein’s Famous Equation E = mc2 : https://rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9642

New Physics – The Negation of Einstein’s Theories of Relativity. JOURNAL OF ADVANCES IN PHYSICS, 22, 54–61. https://doi.org/10.24297/jap.v22i.9594

“The Mystery of the Lorentz Transform: A Reconstruction and Its Implications for Einstein's Theories of Relativity and cosmology” : INSPIRE>HEP: https://inspirehep.net/literature/2158754

There seems that in these times any discussion is not possible. Nobody tries to understand the others, but each speaks his own story, irrespective of similarity or distinction with the others.

To Andre:

I tried to read your recommended paper. It is rather speculative, charged by the historical wander, and not concentrated to the essence. Instead of the further its review, I would recommend you my Unity of Physics or Foundation of Electrodynamics, dealing with the same themes. Unlike your text in amount of 40 pgs, each mine is less than 10 pgs.

To Abdul:

SRT is not a coherent systematic theory, but has some more or less acceptable details. I also deny the kinematical aspects of SRT, founded on so called Lorentz transformations, e.g. in my paper Orientation in Space. However, its dynamical aspects, as the mass-function and Einstein's equation, are strongly affirmed in my Unity of Physics & Curvilinear Cosmology. Unlike the former one, this aspect is not relativistic at all, but understands a preferential reference frame. Otherwise, mass would be undetermined.

Branko V. Mišković > “SRT is not a coherent systematic theory,”

Is it worth the efforts and the time to be preoccupied with a theory, which is not “coherent and systematic”? Einstein’s theories of relativity are nothing but metaphysics of brain-cooked logical/mathematical categories – enduring and expensive myths of modern cosmology. Continuing with the same metaphysics (brain-cooked logical/mathematical categories) either to prove, substantiate or to refute these theories can only lead to endless debate, scholasticism, cobweb-spinning, eclectic flea-cracking; but nothing of positive value.

Please try the an alternative approach based on dialectics, which was progressively developed by Copernicus, Kepler, Brahe, Leibniz, Hegel and Engels among the notables, as described in the following articles and the attached collage ( a WORD file) by a young man named Jerry Muzsik.

“Quō Vādis theoretical physics and cosmology? from Newton’s Metaphysics to Einstein’s Theology”: https://www.mathematicsgroup.us/abstracts/AMP-6-181

KEPLER -NEWTON -LEIBNIZ -HEGEL Portentous and Conflicting Legacies in Theoretical Physics, Cosmology and in Ruling https://www.rajpub.com/index.php/jap/article/view/9106

Not only that the mass-function and E-Eq. are well elaborated and practically confirmed, but I personally have a few their derivations and theoretical interpretations. One of them is just announced in my above discussion. However, you do not want to read and notice it.

Branko V. Mišković

Dear Branko,

You wrote: "I tried to read your recommended paper. It is rather speculative, charged by the historical wander, and not concentrated to the essence."

I am simply reporting and commenting about what was experimentally discovered in the past about the electron and electromagnetic energy.

Don't you think that experimentalists of the past did not actually discovered and confirmed some aspects of physical reality?

How would you explain otherwise all of the successful applications that engineers have developed for us over the past hundred years, grounded on these discoveries.

How speculative can a discovery be when it is confirmed by successful engineering applications?

I simply put in perspective these past experimental discoveries for whoever may be interested.

Excuse me, maybe my reply was not refined or precise. Instead of expecting the better my comment, please compare your text with one of me, e.g. 'Curvilinear Cosmology'.