English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

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

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