The Text has been Submitted for Publication to______________.
Special Relativity Theory is based on 2 postulates much as high school plane geometry is based on 5 axioms. However, postulates are required to be experimentally testable and found to be true, while the axioms of pure mathematics are in general not testable and strictly speaking do not represent physical reality. In the enclosed document, (You will find a link below), it is proved that assuming postulate 1 is experimentally true, then postulate 2 is experimentally false and thus if postulate 2 is experimentally true then postulate 1 is experimentally false. The 2 postulates of S.R.T. are therefore inconsistent with one another. The proof is important because the formula E=mc^2 is based on the assumption that both postulates are experimentally true and thus it is proved that E does not equal mc^2. This necessitates a new explanation for the origin of the sun’s energy and the origin of atomic energy and the origin of the energy for thermonuclear weapons. It also necessitates the creation of a new model for the photon, a new model for the atom to replace the quantum mechanical atom and a new model for positive and negative charge. Mathematical models for these things are what form the subject of my text “Principia Mathematica Physica Atomika”. Individual chapters of the text will be put on this site as interest warrants. The proof in its present form was completed in 1982 (See Chapter 1 below) and copyrighted September 24, 1984 with copyright registration number TXu 173-386. The proof had its origin in a paper by the present author and published in the Journal, "Foundations of Physics", June 1975. Students of physics are now in a position to mathematically, rigorously prove to their physics professors that E does not equal mc^2.
I should like to add that the mathematical proof that E does not equal mc^2 given in the text has economic consequences for us all. To create reactor fuel and bomb material requires more electrical energy than is released in the exploding bomb or the complete fission of the reactor fuel. It costs more money to burn fossil fuels to create electrical energy to create reactor fuel material, than is recouped by using the created reactor fuel material in a nuclear reactor to create electrical energy. This is energetically and economically wasteful.
France creates ~80% of their electrical energy from nuclear power. The nuclear fuel is provided by the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran and is considered as foreign aid. To create the nuclear fuel in the U.S., Russia, Saudi Arabia, and Iran, requires more electrical energy than is recovered by using the created nuclear fuel to create electrical energy in France. Let a word to the wise be sufficient.
Large-scale solar arrays as have been constructed in the desert areas of Southern California are a source of electrical energy. Their one drawback is that they do not produce electric power at night. What is needed is an energy storage device that can be charged during the day and used as an electric energy source at night. Nuclear plants can be that energy storage device. i.e. Nuclear fuel can be created during the day using the electric energy from half the solar array, and that fuel can be used to create electric energy at night.
It is my aim that an orderly, evolutionary process begin at the university level that will eliminate false ideas in physics and replace false ideas with physically correct ideas. I should like to add that in no country but ours, the United States of America, could a web site such as this be put on the www. with impunity.
P.S. In order to read the papers on "History of Atomic Bomb" or "Memory and Learning" or "Physics and E.S.P." or "Cell Molecule Transport" or "Solar Energy" or "Sensory Perception, Subjective Reality and Raw Feels", or "Cosmology of the Infinite Universe" or "Electroshock Therapy", or "Dear Alison (Letters to psychologist A.G.)", or "Quantum Mechanics Critique", or Consciousness, click on the respective tile found on the upper left of this page.