Linear Magnitudes Estimated via Expense of Incompletely Defined Potential Energy were Likely Overestimated by over 3.48 %

Abstract

Since former definition of work done by any radial/center-bound (central) force field (and consequently thus also of the corresponding to it expense of potential energy of the field) was incompletely defined (so that these two basic notions were valid only for purely radial phenomena), some indirect estimations of those linear magnitudes that relied on the former (incomplete yet always presumed as total) potential energy may have been overestimated. New, operationally complete and thus mathematically lawful definition of total rate of work done by the field implies presence of a certain (experimentally observed but formerly quite unanticipated and thus routinely unaccounted for) nonradial angular contribution to the total potential energy. Hence some previous calculations of those linear magnitudes, which were indirectly estimated via expense of potential energy spent on the work done, may have been quite inadvertently overrated by over 3.48 %. This was because the extra potential energy that is spent on twisting the path that is deflected by the source of the field was disregarded in the former, incomplete definition of work done, even though such nonradial twisting is generally required by proven Frenet-Serret formulas of differential geometry. This present assessment is based upon purely mathematical premises, but similar prior nonradial angular formula utilized here has already retrodicted the 10.56 % excess over Einstein's prediction of deflection of light that was observed in several unbiased experiments, and it has reconciled some other experiments that could neither be explained nor reconciled by general theory of relativity, which, as radial by design, does not account for nonradial or mixed phenomena.

Mathematical Expansion of Special Theory of Relativity Onto Accelerations

“…If you check the mathematics used in the supplemental material attached to [107], you can see that they use the radial scalar potential function whose mathematical core is V=1/r not the fully evaluated 3D potential that pays for the work done by the given force field. I have shown in [109] that an error of at least 3.48% is to be expected due to mathematical evaluation alone, not to mention some physical constraints that could further increase the discrepancy. Some authors explicitly disparaged and thus virtually discouraged the use of moving trihedron in Frenet reference frames [110], without which it may be difficult to recognize the possible presence of other than purely radial (i.e.…”