[jeffreyH (OP)]

Personally I believe it is negative kinetic energy which is absent in SR. What do you think?

[Colin2B]

What about the treatment of acceleration?

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Since the direction of the force is towards the centre of mass then both acceleration and the induced kinetic energy are negative. They go hand in hand. At the moment I am examining both the shell theorem and the Yukawa potential and may have more thoughts.

[Colin2B]

... At the moment I am examining both the shell theorem and the Yukawa potential and may have more thoughts.

Look forward with interest.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

In the meantime, as a slight aside, this looks interesting.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_force#possible_evidence

The link doesn't appear to move to the possible evidence section so you may have to scroll down. The whole article is worth a read.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

If instead of treating Planck's constant h as a constant we define u = E₀t where E₀ is the emission energy. We can determine an energy equation of the form E = uf₀ where f ₀ is the emission frequency. The equivalent mass term is then m = E/c^2.

The Yukawa potential is V(r) = -g^2[e^-kmr/r]. For the electromagnetic field g = 1 and since m = 0 we have a potential of 1/r. If we use our new mass term then the energy based on action varies with radial distance. This describes what sounds like the gravitational field. Except that the value of the constant k has not been determined.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Please note. I have severe doubts about the validity of the formulas in the previous post. I need to think through the implications.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

The Yukawa potential has to do with exchange particles so the above formula no longer expresses this. It may be that this represents the potential for action at points in the field.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

On a related note.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein%E2%80%93Hilbert_action

Feel free to kick me into new theories at any time.

[jeffreyH (OP)]

Consider a situation where we have two positions within a gravitational field labeled A and B. Define them to be at different gravitational potentials. Then if a photon with frequency f₀ is emitted at A and travels to B its frequency there is f₁. If a photon is emitted at position B with frequency f₁ then to balance the books the final frequency upon arrival at position A should be f₀. So that emission energy is a variable and potential is a function of the emission energy and the position in the field. Mapping action potentials to the field then makes sense.

[guest4091]

I thought it was formulation in a gravitational environment.