When you take the theory Emc2, and work it without the element of time as a constant, (which it is not, time is a device of measurement, there are no constants), and work the equation backwards, it fails to be absolute. (proven by the top astrophysicists in the world, they do agree however, that it is "close enough" for anything we need to do with matter)

Well, the energy and mass equivalence is not a theory, it just says that the totality of energy is one whole, and that it can be converted by a conversion factor involving the very important number c. And what scientist or paper are you refering to? It sounds like something I would like to read. I don't think constants are constants, but I am not really sure yet. Neat post, but I'm not really sure what you mean by working backwards. Perhaps energy is not conserved? I know for certain that in gr that the conservation of mass is no longer upheld formally.

Gravity and energy is the same thing, i.e. the relationship between lighter and heavier elements.. everything is based on that, from solar systems to the atom, from suns emitting photons due to its immense mass to the energy/gravity looked inside the food that we eat.

Can you provide links to scientific sources that support what you say?

The formula works quite well in building atomic bombs. The CERN collider uses it quite accurately to pump mass into protons.

The formula also works well with nuclear power production.