WHY IS THE INCORRECT VERSION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY BEING STUDIED IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS, REFUTED BY THE EXISTENCE OF RADIO AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING EVEN BEFORE ITS CREATION? Текст научной статьи по специальности «Физика»

PHYSICS AND MATHEMATICS

WHY IS THE INCORRECT VERSION OF THE SPECIAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY BEING STUDIED IN PHYSICS TEXTBOOKS, REFUTED BY THE EXISTENCE OF RADIO AND ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING EVEN BEFORE ITS CREATION? 1

Antonov A.

PhD, HonDSc, HonDL, ResProf., H.ProfSci Independent researcher, Kiev, Ukraine DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.7560145

Abstract

The article states that the existing version of the special theory of relativity (STR) is incorrect, since relativ-istic formulas obtained therein are incorrect; they have been incorrectly explained by using the incorrect principle of speed of light non-exceedance and entailed wrong conclusions about physical unreality of imaginary numbers and existence of only our visible universe. It mentions experimental evidence of the foregoing, obtained by the author within study of transient and resonant processes in linear electric circuits. It is shown that the existing version of the STR implies conclusions on nonexistence of tsunami and bell ringing, piano music and swinging children's swings, as well as many other real processes. It is also shown that the existing version of the STR denies even the possibility of existence of radio- and electrical engineering. Therefore, it is concluded that existing university physics textbooks should be corrected.

Keywords: Special theory of relativity, physical reality of imaginary numbers, theory of linear electrical circuits, radio engineering, electrical engineering.

1. Introduction

The special theory of relativity is now presented for study in all university physics textbooks and its creation by Joseph Larmor [1], Nobel Prize winner Hendrik Anton Lorenz [2], Jules Henri Poincare [3], Nobel Prize winner Albert Einstein [4] and other prominent scientists is rightfully considered the greatest achievement of physics of the 20th century. However, its creation stopped halfway due to the lack of necessary experimental knowledge at that time and the inability of its authors to correctly explain the relativistic formulas obtained in STR. They did not know how to explain that according to these formulas all the results of calculations at superluminal velocities turned out to be imaginary numbers discovered by Scipione del Ferro, Nic-colo Fontana Tartaglia, Gerolamo Cardano, Lodovico Ferrari and Rafael Bombelli [5] 400 years ago. It is also possible that Paolo Valmes [6] was even first to make the scientific discovery, for which he was burned by the sentence of Spanish inquisitor Thomas de Torquemada. But it was necessary to explain these formulas, because a theory that even its authors could not explain would be of no use to anyone. Therefore, a postulate called the principle of light speed non-exceedance was introduced into the STR. The postulate implied that a situation at superluminal velocities might be unexplained, as people would never face it. Consequently, a belief that imaginary numbers were physically unreal turned out to be possible. Thus, relativistic formulas appeared to be explainable.

It was convenient, but unproven and, as it turned out later, incorrect. But in this form, the generally accepted version of the STR was studied in all university physics textbooks. And it is still studied today.

However, this postulate was refuted by the discovery of Cherenkov radiation [7], for which Pavel Ale-kseyevich Cherenkov, Igor Evgenyevich Tamm and Ilya Mikhailovich Frank received the Nobel Prize in 1958. And at that time the generally accepted version of STR was saved by specification that the principle of non-exceeding the speed of light refers to the speed of light only in a vacuum. But by numerous experiments [8]-[23] performed in the 21st century it was proved that such corrected formulation of the principle of non-exceeding the speed of light is also incorrect. As it turned out, this formulation was refuted by the existence of natural phenomena known from time immemorial - tsunami, bell ringing, music created by pianos and even swinging after pushing by parents children swings, which the authors of STR at its creation did not take into account. This formulation was also refuted by the existence of radio- and electrical engineering.

As a result by all these experiments and the mentioned natural phenomena a very important general scientific principle of physical reality of imaginary (and consequently also complex and hyper-complex) numbers by which the really existing huge and still completely unknown to the modern science world is described was proved. And the use of the principle of physical reality of imaginary numbers as applied to the universally accepted version of STR allowed us to conclude that the relativistic formulas obtained in this version are wrong in general, because at hyperluminal speeds they correspond to an unstable, i.e. instantly self-destructive, physical world.

1 This is reprint of the article "Antonov A. A. "Why the physics textbooks tech am incorrect version of the special theory of relativity which denies the existence of radio- and electrical engineering". Challenges and problems of modern science. Proceedings of the III International Scientific and Practical Conference. London, United Kingdom. 2022. pp. 78-86. https://con-ference-w.com/

What is the most surprising is that, despite all the aforementioned sensational experimental refutations2 [24] -[44], the incorrect version of the STR has still been groundlessly believed to be correct and studied in all university physics textbooks, as well as naturally used by physicists in their fruitless scientific research - for example, in attempts to understand what is dark matter and dark energy while performing research at the Large Hadron Collider. It is completely unclear why a single disproving experiment is enough to refute other hypotheses and theories in physics and other sciences, whereas the existing version of the STR turned out to be irrefutable despite all the experimental and theoretical proofs of its falsity. Moreover, in the USSR even three times in 1934, in 1942 and in 1964 by the decisions of the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (Bolsheviks) and the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR, which have not yet been canceled, it was generally forbidden to criticize this theory. That's why the question raised in the article title is very important and ways and rates of further science development would depend on answer thereto.

Further, we will try to answer this question.

2. From STR it follows that radio engineering and electrical engineering should not exist in nature

And we will make this attempt on the example of one more refutation of the generally accepted version of STR. On the assertion that STR on the one hand and radio engineering (and electrical engineering too) on the other hand mutually refute each other [45]-[54]. But since there can be no doubt about the existence of radio engineering and electrical engineering, it is obvious that then the existing interpretation of SRT is incorrect.

But do the STR and radio engineering actually refute each other? Let's check it out. Let's look at the arguments of SRT. It follows from the fundamental principle of the STR on light speed non-exceedance that imaginary numbers3 have no real physical content. In other words, objects and phenomena described using imaginary numbers do not exist. This expressly follows from the version of the STR set forth in all university physics textbooks. And neither authors of the textbooks nor anyone else can still explain what, for example, 5i

meters, 200i grams or 300i meters, where I = 4—1 is, whereas everyone knows what 5 meters, 200 grams or 300 meters is. That's why the principle of light speed non-exceedance used in the STR has caused no objections.

However back in 1893 Charles Proteus Steinmetz (original name Karl August Rudolf Steinmetz) offered, as applied to linear AC circuits, his interpretation4 of Ohm's law, discovered by Ohm in 1826 as applied to DC circuits. According to his theory, called a linear circuit symbolic analysis method, not only resistors, but

2 Which, in contrast to the widely publicized unsuccessful OPERA experiment, were quite reliable and, having been done before the OPERA experiment, made it unnecessary

3 Naturally, it makes sense to talk about the physical reality

of imaginary numbers, as well as real numbers, only in rela-

tion to named numbers, equipped with indications of the units used for the corresponding parameters of physical objects and processes.

also capacitors and inductors have resistance referred to in Ohm's law. Herewith, resistance of resistors R is measured by real numbers, and resistance of capacitors C and inductors L is measured by imaginary numbers JaL and - jaC, where j = -J— 1 is the so-called imaginary unit5, and a is the frequency of applied voltage. But in accordance with the principle of light speed non-exceedance their resistances do not actually exist, just as on the same basis in accordance with the STR there are no relativistic mass, time and length at superluminal velocities. They are even called imaginary resistances in the theory of electric circuits.

Consequently, real electrical resistance of any LCR - circuit must always be determined only by resistors R included in this circuit and be measured by real numbers. Therefore, the current flowing through such an electrical circuit should not depend on the value of the frequency of the applied voltage.This means that there could be no resonance in such electric circuits, and electrical filters could not be created. For this reason, existence of radio engineering and electrical engineering is also completely impossible.

3. However, it follows from the existence of radio engineering and electrical engineering that the version of SRT studied in all physics textbooks is incorrect

Now, let us come to think of it.

There is no doubt that nature is one and the laws of nature are also one. Always and everywhere. Be it on Earth, or in the depth of space, or in the microcosm, or in animate or in inanimate nature. However, people, due to their limited intellectual capacity, are able to absorb only a very small part of this knowledge. Norbert Wiener wrote in this regard: "Important researches sometimes delayed by the unavailability in one field of results that may have already become classical in the next field"

That was what happened in physics in the 20th century.

Physical reality of imaginary numbers unknown in physics to this day had been known in radio engineering even before the STR was created. Moreover, there are other sciences that use imaginary numbers besides physics. Unlike physics that has still had no idea of physical interpretation of relativistic formulas of the STR at superluminal velocities (therefore, the principle of light speed non-exceedance proved to be in demand in the STR), radio engineering textbooks perfectly explain the use of imaginary numbers.

In 1826, when there had been no electrical measuring equipment, Georg Simon Ohm discovered a law applicable to DC circuits. The law was named after him

4 On which he made a presentation at the International Electrical Congress and, in addition, in the proceedings of the American Institute of Electrical Engineers published an article "Complex quantities and their use in electrical engineering."

5 In the theory of electric circuits the imaginary unit is commonly denoted by the letter j, whereas the letter i denotes electric current.

[55], [56]. And in 1893 Charles Proteus Steinmetz proposed his interpretation of Ohm's law in respect to linear AC circuits [57],

Now millions of engineers all over the world use it daily in their practice. According to the symbolic electric circuit analysis method proposed by him, resistance of any LCR-circuit would be measured by complex numbers whose values depend on frequency of voltage applied to an electric circuit.

This makes it possible to carry out a very simple and comprehensible experiment that answers the question whether imaginary numbers are physically real. And all we need for this is to change the frequency applied to a considered LCR-circuit and once again measure the value of current flowing in it. If the value of current does not change, resistances of capacitors and

inductors included in the circuit are actually imaginary by its physical nature. And if the value of current changes, then these resistances are imaginary only in name and since they are measurable, they are actually existent. After all, most of what we know about the world around us, we have learned in physics, biology, chemistry and all other sciences particularly with the help of measuring devices. And if we learnt about the world around us directly with the help of our senses and trusted only them, there would be no science.

All engineers who have ever held a soldering iron in their hands know that resistance of LCR-circuits always depends on frequency of voltage applied to them. This dependence is called the frequency response. For many decades, the industry has even mass-produced devices for measuring frequency responses (see fig.1).

Fig. 1. Fig. 1. In any radio engineering laboratory there are devices (one of them is shown in the figure), called frequency response meters, which by their very existence prove the physical reality of imaginary numbers. Thus they prove the incorrectness of the existing version ofSRT, and the OPERA and ICARUS experiments at the

Large Hadron Collider made it unnecessary

Thus, radio engineering undoubtedly proves physical reality of imaginary numbers and thereby refutes the principle of light speed non-exceedance, and, consequently, the version of the STR presented in all university textbooks of physics.

4. Why did the existing version of STR turn out to be irrefutable?

Despite all the refutations mentioned above, the version of the STR set forth in modern textbooks continues to dominate in physics and is studied even in the most prestigious universities. And involuntarily the question "why?" arises. Why is it that in other sciences one experiment that refutes them is enough for the corresponding hypothesis or theory to cease to exist? .And in physics, SRT, in spite of everything, turned out to be irrefutable. Why did the existing version of STR turn out to be irrefutable?

The answer to this question is obvious - because this version of SRT is in demand. But this answer raises another question - by whom and why is it in demand? And the answer to it is also simple - by relativistic physicists and for career reasons. But it's not entirely obvious.

Then let us remember. At the beginning of the 20th century, the STR was met with hostility. Nobody understood and accepted it, since scientists had previously carried out their research based on classical physics, which even now is much more requested than rela-tivistic physics. However, the STR overcame general

scepticism of physics community and began to be studied in textbooks. Now history repeats itself. For more than 100 years of its existence, many studies have been done, many theses have been defended, many articles and books have been published, and many physicists have created their careers on the basis of the STR. Many physicists-relativists have headed academic departments and journal editorial offices. Considering that there is no antimonopoly law in science, but rather competition, physicists have naturally begun to use their position to stifle scientific dissent. Sir Karl Raimund Popper [58] wrote: "... Struggle of opinions in scientific theories is inevitable and is a necessary prerequisite for the development of science. "

Therefore, in order to answer the question posed in the title of the article, it is necessary to take into account the psychological aspect of the problem of competition in science, which is actually a kind of business. Hans Christian Andersen's fairy tale "The Emperor's New Clothes" perfectly illustrates the paradoxical nature of the solution of this problem in STR. It is clear from the tale that the indisputability of the existing version of the (essentially incorrect) STR was achieved by taking the problem of its existence beyond the bounds of common sense. The same way in Andersen's fairy tale, in which knavish tailors suggested to the king that he make clothes invisible to the unwise courtiers and visible to the wise courtiers, thereby creating a situation beyond common sense in which:

• courtiers, in order for the king to consider them smart, began to pretend that they see the king's clothes that do not actually exist;

• courtiers who would like to tell the truth about emperor's non-existent clothes knew in advance that they would be regarded stupid;

• thus, the situation forced courtiers to tell a lie for career reasons, and thereby contribute to the successful activities of the swindlers.

And as shown in the monograph of the Nobel Prize winner Sir Roger Penrose "The New Mind of the King" [59], which is an allusion to Andersen's fairy tale, quite recently in computer science it was similarly argued about the inevitability of the emergence of a computer civilization [60]-[64], which over time supposed to enslave people. This witty reception of Sir Penrose was so effective that now no one remembers the possible enslavement of people by computers.

And in the situation considered in the article:

• the physical community now recognizes as "smart" those scientists who understand (and at first no one understood and accepted STR) the generally accepted version of STR and believe it to be unconditionally correct, despite the fact that it is refuted by many well-known physical realities;

• and these "smart" scientists even deliberately created - for example, by the OPERA and ICARUS experiments - an incorrect public opinion about the infallibility of the existing version of STR presented in university physics textbooks, which justified their unsuccessful long-term multi-billion dollar costs for the implementation of erroneous scientific concepts;

• at the same time, scientists who try to criticize the generally accepted version of STR, the physical community creates a dubious reputation and difficulties in creative activity.

Thus, from the set forth it follows that the universally accepted version of STR stated in physics textbooks, as it is incorrect, it is quite possible to call on terminology H. H. Andersen's "New King's Delusion". And in fact this new theory is as non-existent as the king's non-existent new dress. But the physical community, ignoring the physical realities refuting this version of STR, as well as the "clever" courtiers in Andersen's fairy tale praises it. And it is even studied in physics textbooks. Nevertheless, as Hans Christian Andersen argued, "the king is naked" and so the generally accepted version of the STR in physics textbooks must be corrected.

5. Conlusions

Therefore it is time to realize that, despite the great significance for science of the principle of relativism, this principle, due to the lack of the necessary experimental knowledge in the 20th century in the generally accepted version of STR, was incorrectly stated using the incorrect postulate about non-exceeding the speed of light, that replaced this knowledge. And over the past century since creation of this obsolete version of the STR, physics community has canonized it, instead of correcting and developing it further using the alternative version of the STR created in the 21 st century [65] -[69]. But Albert Einstein himself does not claim that his version of STO is infallible. He wrote: "There is no idea

in which I am confident that it will stand the test of time"

Therefore, the conclusion is logical: modern higher physical education is imperfect, because now even in the most prestigious universities students are still being taught knowledge that has already been refuted by modern science.

Acknowledgments

The author gratefully acknowledges the insights, comments, and assistance of Olga Ilyinichna Antonova.

References

1. Larmor J.J. (1897). A Dynamical Theory of the Electric and Luminiferous Medium. Part III. Relations with Material Media. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences. 190, 205-300.

2. Lorentz H.A. (1899). Simplified Theory of Electrical and Optical Phenomena in Moving Systems. Proceedings of the Netherlands Academy of Arts and Science. Amsterdam. 1, 427-442.

3. Poincaré H. (1905). On the Dynamics of the Electron. Comptes Rendus. 140. 1504-1508.

4. Einstein A. (1905). Zur Elektrodynamik bewegter Korper. Annals of Physic. 17. 891-921.

5. Weisstein E.W. (2005). The CRC Concise Enciclopedia of Mathe-matics. 3-rd ed. Roca Raton. FL, CRS Press.

6. Beckmann P. (1976). A History of n. 3-rd edition. St. Martin's Press. NY.

7. Tamm I. E. (1959). General properties of radiation emitted by systems moving at superluminal velocities and some applications to plasma physics. Advances in Physical Sciences. 68(3). 387-396. doi:10.3367/UFNr.0068.195907c.0387

8. Antonov A. A. (2008). Physical Reality of Resonance on Complex Frequencies. European Journal of Scientific Research. 21(4). 627-641. http://www.euro-journals.com/ejsr.htm

9. Antonov A. A. (2009), Resonance on Real and Complex Frequencies. European Journal of Scientific Research. 28(2). 193-204. http://www.eurojour-nals.com/ejsr.htm

10. Antonov A. A. (2010). New Interpretation of Resonance. International Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences and Technology. 1(2). 1-12. http://doi.org/10.17686/sced_rusnauka_ 2010-888

11. Antonov A. A. (2010). Oscillation processes as a tool of physics cognition. American Journal of Scientific and Industrial Research. 1(2). 342 - 349. doi:10.5251/ajsir.2010.1.2.342.349

12. Antonov A. A. (2010). Solution of algebraic quadratic equations taking into account transitional processes in oscillation systems. General Mathematics Notes. 1(2). 11-16. http://doi.org/10.17686/sced_rusnauka_2010-887

13. Antonov A. A. (2013). Physical Reality of Complex Numbers. International Journal of Management, IT and Engineering. 3(4). 219-230. http://doi.org/10.17686/sced_rusnauka_2013-898

14. Antonov A.A. (2014). Correction of the special theory of relativity: physical reality and nature of imaginary and complex numbers. American Journal of

Scientific and Industrial Research. 5(2). 40-52. doi:10.5251/ajsir.2014.5.2.40.52

15. Antonov A. A. (2015). The principle of physical reality of imaginary and complex numbers in modern cosmology: the nature of dark matter and dark energy. Journal of Russian Physical and Chemical Society. 87(1). 328-355. (in Russian). http://doi.org/10.17686/ sced_rusnauka_2015-1119

16. Antonov A.A. (2016). Physical Reality and Nature of Imaginary, Complex and Hypercomplex Numbers. General Mathematics Notes. 35(2). 40-63. http://www.geman.in/yahoo_site_admin/as-sets/docs/4_GMN-10932-V35N2.31895146.pdf

17. Antonov A.A. (2017). The physical reality and essence of imaginary numbers. Norwegian Journal of development of the International Science. 6. 50-63. http ://www.njd-iscience. com

18. Antonov A. A. (2015). Physical reality of complex numbers is proved by research of resonance. General Mathematics Notes. 31(2). 34-53. http://www.emis.de/jour-

nals/GMN/yahoo_site_admin/assets/docs/4_GMN-9212-V31N2.1293701.pdf

19. Antonov A. A. (2015). Ohm's law explains as-trophysical phenomenon of dark matter and dark energy. Global Journal of Physics 2(2). 145-149. http ://gpcpublishing. com/index.php?jour-nal=gjp&page=arti-

cle&op=view&path%5B%5D=294&path%5B%5D=p df_14

20. Antonov A. A. (2015). Adjustment of the special theory of relativity according to the Ohm's law. American Journal of Electrical and Electronics Engi-neeing. 3(5). 124-129. doi: 10.12691/ajeee-3-5-3

21. Antonov A.A. (2016). Ohm's Law is the general law of exact sciences. PONTE. 72(7) 131-142. doi: 10.21506/j.ponte.2016.7/9

22. Antonov A.A. (2016). Ohm's Law explains phenomenon of dark matter and dark energy. International Review of Physics. 10(2). 31-35 https://www.praiseworthyprize.org/jsm/in-dex.php?journal=irephy&page=arti-cle&op=view&path%5B%5D= 18615

23. Antonov A.A. (2016). Ohm's law refutes current version of the special theory of relativity. Journal of Modern Physics. 7. 2299-2313. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jmp.2016.716198

24. Antonov A. A. (2021). The special theory of relativity presented in physics textbooks is incorrect. 77 International scientific conference of Eurasian Scientific Association "Theoretical and practical issues of modern science". Moscow. ESA. 11-15. (in Russian)

25. Antonov A. A. (2021). Version of the special theory of relativity that is studied in all physics textbooks is incorrect. Österreichisches Multiscience Journal (Insbruck, Austria). 43(1). 17-22. http://osterr-sci-ence.com

26. Antonov A. A. (2021). Generally accepted version of the special theory of relativity contained in physics textbooks is incorrect. The scientific heritage. (Budapest, Hungary). 73(2). 39-43. DOI: 19.24412/9215-0365-2021-73-2-39-43

27. Antonov A. A. (2021). Special theory of relativity, which is studied in physics textbooks, is incorrect. German International Journal of Modern Science. 16, 49-53. DOI: 10.24412/2701-8369-2021-16-49-53

28. Antonov A. A. (2021). Special theory of relativity, which is studied in all physics textbooks, is incorrect. Danish Scientific Journal. 51(1). 31-35. http://www.danish-journal.com

29. Antonov A. A. (2021). Special theory of relativity taught in all physics textbooks is incorrect. Annali d'Italia. 22(1). 39-44. https://www.anditalia.com/

30. Antonov A. A. (2021). Special theory of relativity presented in physics textbooks is wrong. Norwegian Journal of development of the International Science 68(1). 3-7. DOI: 10.24412/3453-9875-2021-68-37.

31. Antonov A. A. (2021). In all physics textbooks an erroneous version of special theory of relativity is given. International independent scientific journal. 31. 34-39. http://www.iis-journal.com

32. Antonov A. A. (2021). Special theory of relativity taught in physics textbooks is wrong. Journal of science. Lyon. 23. 47-52. https://www.joslyon.com/

33. Antonov A. A. (2021). All physics textbooks study incorrect special theory of relativity. Sciences of Europe. (Praha, Czech Republic). 79(1). 30-35. DOI: 10/24412/3162-2364-2021-79-30-35

34. Antonov A.A. (2021). Experimental proofs of falsity of the version of the special theory of relativity presented for study in physics textbooks and truth of its alternative version. 80 International scientific conference of Eurasian Scientific Association "Development of science and education in the context of global instability". Moscow. ESA. 8-17. (in Russian) https://esa-conference.ru/sborniki/?y=2021

35. Antonov A. A. (2021). The fallacy of the STR version studied in physics textbooks proved experimentally. Österreichisches Multiscience Journal (Innsbruck, Austria). 45(1). 17-26. http://osterr-science.com

36. Antonov A. A. (2021). Experimental evidences for the fallacy of the STR version in the physics text-books. European Journal of Applied Sciences. Services for Science and Education. UK. 9(6). 349-364. DOI:10.14738/aivp.96.11304.

37. Antonov A. A. (2021). If the STR version in physics textbooks were true, we would never have heard the music of the piano and the bell ringing, there would be no television, no cellular telephony, no radar or GPS navigation, we would not even be aware of the existence of resonance and Ohm's law as interpreted by Steinmetz, and our children could not swing on the swings. The scientific heritage (Budapest, Hungary). 78(2). 41-50. DOI: 10.24412/9215-0365-2021-78-241-50

38. Antonov A. A. (2021). Experimental refutations of the STR version contained in physics textbooks and confirmations of the truth of its alternative version. German International Journal of Modern Science. 22. 52-61. DOI: 10.24412/2701-8369-2021-22-52-61

39. Antonov A. A. (2021). The STR version in physics textbooks must be corrected, because if it were true, there would be no tsunamis or indian summer in

nature, we would be never have heard piano music, engineers would be not have been able to create television, cell phones, GPS trackers, and even children would not be able to swing on swings. Danish Scientific Journal. 54(1). 29-38. http://www.danish-journal.com

40. Antonov A. A. (2021). Experimental evidence of the incorrectness of the STR version studied in physics textbooks. Annali d'Italia. 25(1). 32-41. https://www.anditalia.com/

41. Antonov A. A. (2021). The incorrectness of the STR version presented in physics textbooks proven experimentally. Norwegian Journal of development of the International Science 74(1). 3-7. DOI: 10.24412/2453-9875-2021-74-53-62.

42. Antonov A. A. (2021). Experimental refutations of the generally accepted version of the SRT studied in physics textbooks. International independent scientific journal. 34(1). 23-32. http://www.iis-jour-nal.com

43. Antonov A. A. (2021). Rxperimental refutations of the SRT version in the physics textbooks. Journal of science. Lyon. 26(1). 29-37. https ://www.joslyon. com/

44. Antonov A. A. (2021). Experimental evidences for the fallacy of the STR version in phisics textbooks. Sciences of Europe (Praha, Czech Republic). 82(2). 19-28. DOI: 10.24412/3162-2364-2021-82-219-28

45. Antonov A. A. (2021). The version of the STR stated in physics textbooks is incorrect, since it denies the existence of radio engineering. 82nd International Scientific Conference of the Eurasian Scientific Association "Scientific results in theory and practice". Moscow. ESA. 11-15. (in Russian) https://esaconfer-ence.ru/sborniki/?y=2021

46. Antonov A. A. (2022). The version of STR presented in physics textbooks is incorrect, since it follows from it that radio engineering should not exist. European Journal of Applied Sciences. Services for Science and Education. UK. 10(1). 440-445. DOI://doi.org/10.14738/aivp.101.2022

47. Antonov A. A. (2022). The existence of radio engineering refutes the physics textbooks' version of STR. The scientific heritage. (Budapest, Hungary). . 83(1). 19-22. DOI: 10.24412/9215-0365-2022-83-119-22

48. Antonov A.A. (2022). The fundamental Ohm's law in radio engineering as interpreted by Steinmetz, which proves the physical reality on imaginary capacitive and inductive reactances, refuted the version of the STR presented in physics textbooks even before its creation. German International Journal of Modern Science. 26. 50-53. DOI: 10.24412/27018369-2022-26-50-63

49. Antonov A.A. (2022). The version of STR stated in physics textbooks is refuted by the existence of radio engineeng. Danish Scientific Journal. 56. 5659. http://www.danish-journal.com

50. Antonov A.A. (2022). The version of STR presented in physics textbooks is incorrect because it denies the possibility of the existence of Ohm's law as interpreted by Steinmetz and, consequently, the existence

of radio engineering. Annali d'ltalia. 28(1), 43-47. https://www.anditalia.com

51. Antonov A.A. (2022) The version of STR stated in physics textbooks is refuted by the existence of radio engineering. Norwegian Journal of development of the International Science. 78(1). 63-67. DOI: 10.24412/3453-9875-2022-78-63-66.

52. Antonov A.A. (2022). If the physics textbook version of STR were true, then Ohm's law should not exist in nature, and therefore all radio engineering would not exist. International independent scientific journal. 36. 16-19. http://www.iis-journal.com

53. Antonov A.A. (2022). If the version of STR in physics textbooks were true, then there would be no radar, no television, no radio navigation, no telecommunication and many other things. Journal of science. Lyon. 28. 76-79. https://www.joslyon.com/

54. Antonov A.A. (2022). The version of STR set out in physics textbooks is incorrect because it states that Ohm's law as interpreted by Steinmetz does not really exist, and therefore radio engineering does not exist either. Sciences of Europe (Praha, Czech Republic). 87(1). 54-57. DOI: 10.24412/3162-2364-2022-1-54-57

55. Ohm G. S. (2014). Die galvanische Kette. Verlag Der Wissenschaften. Gottingen.

56. Ohm G. S. (2015). Gesammelte Abhandlungen. Severus Verlag, Hamburg.

57. Steinmetz C. P. (2010). Theory and Calculation of Electric Circuit. Nabu Press. Charlstone. SC.

58. Popper K. R. (2002). Conjectures and Refutations. The Growth of Scienrific Knowledge. London. Routledge.

59. Penrose R., (2016), The Emperor's New Mind: Concerning Computers, Minds, and the Laws of Physics, Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK

60. Vinge V. (1993). The coming technological singularity: How to survive in the post-human era. In VISION-21 Symposium. NASA Lewis Research Center and the Ohio Aerospace Institute. https://www.frc.ri.cmu.edu/~hpm/book98/com.ch1/vin ge.singularity.html

61. Moravec H. (1998). When will computer hardware match the human brain? Journal of Evolution and Technology. 1. 1-12. http://www.frc.cmu/edu/~hpm/

62. Kurzweil R. (2005). The Singularity Is Near: When Humans Transcend Biology. Viking: NY.

63. Bostrom N. (2006). How Long Before Superintelligence? Linguistic and Philosophian Investigations. 5(1). 11-30. http://www.nick.bostrom.com

64. Yudkowsky E. (2008). Artificial Intelligence as a Positive and Negative Factor in Global Risk. Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence. In Global Catastrophic Risks, edited by Nick Bostrom and Milan M. Cirkovic. 308-405. Oxford University Press.

65. Antonov A. A. 2016. What Physical World Do We Live in. Journal of Modern Physics, 7(14), 19331943 DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2016.714170

66. Antonov A. A. (2019). The special theory of relativity was not and could not be created in the 20-th century. Journal of Russian Physical and Chemical Society. 91(1). 57-94. http://www.rusphysics.ru/files/An-tonov.91-1.pdf

67. Antonov A. A. 2020. Comparative Analysis of Existing and Alternative Version of the Special Theory of Relativity. Journal of Modern Physics. 11(2), 324342. DOI: 10.4236/jmp.2020.11202

68. Antonov A. A. 2021 How to turn human civilization into super civilization. 72 International scientific conference of Eurasian Scientific Association "Modern concepts of scientific research". Moscow.

ESA. 3-15. (in Russian) https://esaconfer-ence.ru/sborniki/?y=2021

69. Antonov A. A. 2021 Antimatter, anti-space and anti-time. 75 International scientific conference of Eurasian Scientific Association "Strategies for stable development of world science". Moscow. ESA. 1-4. (in Russian) https://esa-conference.ru/sborniki/?y=2021