Supplementary paper demonstrates an inverse-square law in a closed two-body system, implying new dynamics principles.
Version 2 of the supplementary paper on the two-body AB acceleration experiment. v1 reanalyzed the published AB acceleration data, defined the acceleration map alpha = R omega^2 centered on the future phase position, and derived the inverse-square law with respect to phase-cell width via harmonic closure |omega_n| dtheta_n = Omega. v2 retains the full v1 content and adds: (i) the zero-order no-go theorem — in the v1 dynamics class the angular speed is frozen, so the readout acceleration accumulates into no velocity measure and cannot act on the closure quantity; (ii) the kinematic consistency condition d|v|/dtau = |alpha| as the acceptance criterion of a first-order readout; (iii) the velocity-feedback dynamics domega/dtau = kappa*alpha as a conservative working hypothesis, with the exact integral omega = omega_0 + kappa*dchi/dtau; and (iv) numerical experiments J, K, L: kinematic consistency holds at machine precision (max error 8.61e-16), the angular-speed variation is bounded and oscillatory, the harmonic acceleration readout survives modulation within 0.96%, the closure-residual envelope does not grow, the inverse-square distance exponent survives to first order (-1.999937891, integrated form), and the slow envelope decrease at strong feedback vanishes in the RK4 continuum limit, identifying it as a discretization artifact. Self-citation [1] is updated to Basic Axiom System v6, whose Axiom 17 lifts the v1 acceleration map to the axiom layer; the feedback rule of v2 is a working hypothesis outside that zero-order readout. Japanese and English texts, TeX/PDF, six new figures, experiment code, and reproduction data are included. Version v3 leaves the text unchanged and replaces the two embedded figures of the English edition (the future-phase-position mechanism diagram and the published-AB second-difference figure) with English-labeled versions; both language editions are recompiled with the v3 DOI.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Noriaki Kihara (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: