gleki wrote:
> krtisfranks wrote:
> > gleki wrote:
> > > krtisfranks wrote:
> > > > The current definition is:
> > > > "x1 (number/quantity; contextless default: li ma'u .a li no) is
the
> > > > (rest/inertial) mass of x2 (object) in units x3".
> > > >
> > > > Should the first terbri be, instead, a dimensionful number so that
> > lo(i)
> > > > grake fills it and the amount thereof (se grake; accessed by
be)
> is
> >
> > > the
> > > > current-x1 (subject to the same constraints and, possibly,
> defaults)?
> > > This
> > > > would make much more sense.
> > >
> > > yep.
> > >
> > > Also I have no clue what grake3 is for.
> > >
> > > And what is the current majga3 for?
> > >
> > > >
> > > > There might also be room for a new third terbri expressing the
> > coordinate
> > >
> > > > system used in order to define how the units are being used. For
> > example,
> > >
> > > > it might be theoretically possible to 'rotate' in some way so that
> > > positive
> > > > masses become negative; we just happen to all agree.
> > >
> > >
> > > How would you fill that new third terbricmi?
> >
> > I am not really sure because I do not have a good grasp of what it
means
> > yet. I am not sure that it is even useful.
>
>
> A brivla for rest mass/energy is necessary though.


Maybe we can directly follow the analogy of "dikca":
x1 is mass (gravitational charge/current, or inertial mass) on/in/of x2,
of polarity/quantity x3 (default: nonnegative; dimensionful).

Bote: I slightly dislike the "current" option in both definitions. But one
can specify whether the charges in question are stationary in or on the
body.

Comment #7: Re: Terbri issues

gleki (Sat Jun 26 08:38:04 2021)

krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > The current definition is: > > > > > "x1 (number/quantity; contextless default: li ma'u .a li no) is > the > > > > > (rest/inertial) mass of x2 (object) in units x3". > > > > > > > > > > Should the first terbri be, instead, a dimensionful number so that > > > lo(i) > > > > > grake fills it and the amount thereof (se grake; accessed by > be) > > is > > > > > > > the > > > > > current-x1 (subject to the same constraints and, possibly, > > defaults)? > > > > This > > > > > would make much more sense. > > > > > > > > yep. > > > > > > > > Also I have no clue what grake3 is for. > > > > > > > > And what is the current majga3 for? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There might also be room for a new third terbri expressing the > > > coordinate > > > > > > > > > system used in order to define how the units are being used. For > > > example, > > > > > > > > > it might be theoretically possible to 'rotate' in some way so that > > > > positive > > > > > masses become negative; we just happen to all agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > How would you fill that new third terbricmi? > > > > > > I am not really sure because I do not have a good grasp of what it > means > > > yet. I am not sure that it is even useful. > > > > > > A brivla for rest mass/energy is necessary though. > > > Maybe we can directly follow the analogy of "dikca": > x1 is mass (gravitational charge/current, or inertial mass) on/in/of x2, > of polarity/quantity x3 (default: nonnegative; dimensionful). > > Bote: I slightly dislike the "current" option in both definitions. But one > can specify whether the charges in question are stationary in or on the > body. Then how to say "it has rest mass of 1 kilo"?

Comment #8: Re: Terbri issues gleki (Sat Jun 26 08:50:26 2021) gleki wrote: > Then how to say "it has rest mass of 1 kilo"? And also "The mass of an electron is about ..."? Comment #9: Re: Terbri issues Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 26 09:38:44 2021) gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > > The current definition is: > > > > > > "x1 (number/quantity; contextless default: li ma'u .a li no) is > > the > > > > > > (rest/inertial) mass of x2 (object) in units x3". > > > > > > > > > > > > Should the first terbri be, instead, a dimensionful number so > that > > > > lo(i) > > > > > > grake fills it and the amount thereof (se grake; accessed by > > be) > > > is > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > current-x1 (subject to the same constraints and, possibly, > > > defaults)? > > > > > This > > > > > > would make much more sense. > > > > > > > > > > yep. > > > > > > > > > > Also I have no clue what grake3 is for. > > > > > > > > > > And what is the current majga3 for? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There might also be room for a new third terbri expressing the > > > > coordinate > > > > > > > > > > > system used in order to define how the units are being used. For > > > > example, > > > > > > > > > > > it might be theoretically possible to 'rotate' in some way so > that > > > > > positive > > > > > > masses become negative; we just happen to all agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would you fill that new third terbricmi? > > > > > > > > I am not really sure because I do not have a good grasp of what it > > means > > > > yet. I am not sure that it is even useful. > > > > > > > > > A brivla for rest mass/energy is necessary though. > > > > > > Maybe we can directly follow the analogy of "dikca": > > x1 is mass (gravitational charge/current, or inertial mass) on/in/of x2, > > of polarity/quantity x3 (default: nonnegative; dimensionful). > > > > Note: I slightly dislike the "current" option in both definitions. But > one > > can specify whether the charges in question are stationary in or on the > > body. > > > Then how to say "it has rest mass of 1 kilo"? At least two broad ways: (1) "ko'a grake li pa ki'o", "ko'a ki'ogra (li pa)", vel sim. (2) Using my newly proposed definition of "majga": "ko'a se majga fi lo grake be li pa ki'o", vel sim. Similarly, one could translate "it has an electric charge of -1 coulomb" as: (1') "ko'a xapsnidu li ni'u pa" vel sim. (2') "ko'a se dikca fi lo xapsnidu be li ni'u pa" vel sim. Comment #10: Re: Terbri issues gleki (Sat Jun 26 09:41:23 2021) krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > > > The current definition is: > > > > > > > "x1 (number/quantity; contextless default: li ma'u .a li no) > is > > > the > > > > > > > (rest/inertial) mass of x2 (object) in units x3". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should the first terbri be, instead, a dimensionful number so > > that > > > > > lo(i) > > > > > > > grake fills it and the amount thereof (se grake; accessed by > > > be) > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > current-x1 (subject to the same constraints and, possibly, > > > > defaults)? > > > > > > This > > > > > > > would make much more sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > yep. > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I have no clue what grake3 is for. > > > > > > > > > > > > And what is the current majga3 for? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There might also be room for a new third terbri expressing the > > > > > coordinate > > > > > > > > > > > > > system used in order to define how the units are being used. > For > > > > > example, > > > > > > > > > > > > > it might be theoretically possible to 'rotate' in some way so > > that > > > > > > positive > > > > > > > masses become negative; we just happen to all agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would you fill that new third terbricmi? > > > > > > > > > > I am not really sure because I do not have a good grasp of what it > > > means > > > > > yet. I am not sure that it is even useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > A brivla for rest mass/energy is necessary though. > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can directly follow the analogy of "dikca": > > > x1 is mass (gravitational charge/current, or inertial mass) on/in/of > x2, > > > of polarity/quantity x3 (default: nonnegative; dimensionful). > > > > > > Note: I slightly dislike the "current" option in both definitions. But > > one > > > can specify whether the charges in question are stationary in or on > the > > > body. > > > > > > Then how to say "it has rest mass of 1 kilo"? > > At least two broad ways: > (1) "ko'a grake li pa ki'o", "ko'a ki'ogra (li pa)", vel sim. > (2) Using my newly proposed definition of "majga": "ko'a se majga fi lo > grake be li pa ki'o", vel sim. > > Similarly, one could translate "it has an electric charge of -1 coulomb" > as: > (1') "ko'a xapsnidu li ni'u pa" vel sim. > (2') "ko'a se dikca fi lo xapsnidu be li ni'u pa" vel sim. I actually thought it's grake3 where you specify which definition of mass you need. So you want grake to be used both for relativistic mass and rest mass? Comment #11: Re: Terbri issues Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 26 10:17:04 2021) gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > gleki wrote: > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > > > > The current definition is: > > > > > > > > "x1 (number/quantity; contextless default: li ma'u .a li no) > > is > > > > the > > > > > > > > (rest/inertial) mass of x2 (object) in units x3". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should the first terbri be, instead, a dimensionful number > so > > > that > > > > > > lo(i) > > > > > > > > grake fills it and the amount thereof (se grake; accessed > by > > > > be) > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > current-x1 (subject to the same constraints and, possibly, > > > > > defaults)? > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > would make much more sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yep. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I have no clue what grake3 is for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And what is the current majga3 for? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There might also be room for a new third terbri expressing > the > > > > > > coordinate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system used in order to define how the units are being used. > > For > > > > > > example, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it might be theoretically possible to 'rotate' in some way > so > > > that > > > > > > > positive > > > > > > > > masses become negative; we just happen to all agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would you fill that new third terbricmi? > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not really sure because I do not have a good grasp of what > it > > > > means > > > > > > yet. I am not sure that it is even useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A brivla for rest mass/energy is necessary though. > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can directly follow the analogy of "dikca": > > > > x1 is mass (gravitational charge/current, or inertial mass) on/in/of > > x2, > > > > of polarity/quantity x3 (default: nonnegative; dimensionful). > > > > > > > > Note: I slightly dislike the "current" option in both definitions. > But > > > one > > > > can specify whether the charges in question are stationary in or on > > the > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > Then how to say "it has rest mass of 1 kilo"? > > > > At least two broad ways: > > (1) "ko'a grake li pa ki'o", "ko'a ki'ogra (li pa)", vel sim. > > (2) Using my newly proposed definition of "majga": "ko'a se majga fi lo > > grake be li pa ki'o", vel sim. > > > > Similarly, one could translate "it has an electric charge of -1 coulomb" > > as: > > (1') "ko'a xapsnidu li ni'u pa" vel sim. > > (2') "ko'a se dikca fi lo xapsnidu be li ni'u pa" vel sim. > > > I actually thought it's grake3 where you specify which definition of mass > you need. So you want grake to be used both for relativistic mass and rest > mass? I did not use grake3. But I read it as specifying the relevant standard/definition of the gram. Is it the "mass of 1 cm^3 of water" standard, the "(1/1000) of the mass of the International Prototype Kilogram" standard, the recent "defining hbar exactly with identified value" standard, or something else? One would have to specify whether rest mass or Relativistic mass is meant, or specify the frame of reference. dikca1 refers to the charge property which is distributed on or throughout a body, contained in and carried by certain quantum particles. In analogy but less usefully, majga1 under my new proposal would refer to the mass property which is distributed on or through a body, contained in and carried by certain (pretty much all) of its quantum particles and, also, at macroscopic scale, by binding energies between particles; it is a property which often arises from the Higgs interaction, being expressed as inertia (not just gravitational 'charge'). In some formulations of Relativity, the value is determined by frame of reference as long as it is nonzero in the stationary frame; modern formulations always use rest mass only, but we should be able to embrace either perspective. Comment #12: Re: Terbri issues Curtis W Franks (Sat Jun 26 10:25:18 2021) krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > gleki wrote: > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > > > gleki wrote: > > > > > > > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > > > > > The current definition is: > > > > > > > > > "x1 (number/quantity; contextless default: li ma'u .a li > no) > > > is > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > (rest/inertial) mass of x2 (object) in units x3". > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Should the first terbri be, instead, a dimensionful number > > so > > > > that > > > > > > > lo(i) > > > > > > > > > grake fills it and the amount thereof (se grake; > accessed > > by > > > > > be) > > > > > > is > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > > > current-x1 (subject to the same constraints and, possibly, > > > > > > defaults)? > > > > > > > > This > > > > > > > > > would make much more sense. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yep. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Also I have no clue what grake3 is for. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And what is the current majga3 for? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There might also be room for a new third terbri expressing > > the > > > > > > > coordinate > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > system used in order to define how the units are being > used. > > > For > > > > > > > example, > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it might be theoretically possible to 'rotate' in some way > > so > > > > that > > > > > > > > positive > > > > > > > > > masses become negative; we just happen to all agree. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > How would you fill that new third terbricmi? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not really sure because I do not have a good grasp of > what > > it > > > > > means > > > > > > > yet. I am not sure that it is even useful. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > A brivla for rest mass/energy is necessary though. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe we can directly follow the analogy of "dikca": > > > > > x1 is mass (gravitational charge/current, or inertial mass) > on/in/of > > > x2, > > > > > of polarity/quantity x3 (default: nonnegative; dimensionful). > > > > > > > > > > Note: I slightly dislike the "current" option in both definitions. > > But > > > > one > > > > > can specify whether the charges in question are stationary in or > on > > > the > > > > > body. > > > > > > > > > > > > Then how to say "it has rest mass of 1 kilo"? > > > > > > At least two broad ways: > > > (1) "ko'a grake li pa ki'o", "ko'a ki'ogra (li pa)", vel sim. > > > (2) Using my newly proposed definition of "majga": "ko'a se majga fi > lo > > > grake be li pa ki'o", vel sim. > > > > > > Similarly, one could translate "it has an electric charge of -1 > coulomb" > > > as: > > > (1') "ko'a xapsnidu li ni'u pa" vel sim. > > > (2') "ko'a se dikca fi lo xapsnidu be li ni'u pa" vel sim. > > > > > > I actually thought it's grake3 where you specify which definition of > mass > > you need. So you want grake to be used both for relativistic mass and > rest > > mass? > > I did not use grake3. But I read it as specifying the relevant > standard/definition of the gram. Is it the "mass of 1 cm^3 of water" > standard, the "(1/1000) of the mass of the International Prototype > Kilogram" standard, the recent "defining hbar exactly with identified > value" standard, or something else? > > One would have to specify whether rest mass or Relativistic mass is meant, > or specify the frame of reference. > > dikca1 refers to the charge property which is distributed on or throughout > a body, contained in and carried by certain quantum particles. In analogy > but less usefully, majga1 under my new proposal would refer to the mass > property which is distributed on or through a body, contained in and > carried by certain (pretty much all) of its quantum particles and, also, > at macroscopic scale, by binding energies between particles; it is a > property which often arises from the Higgs interaction, being expressed as > inertia (not just gravitational 'charge'). In some formulations of > Relativity, the value is determined by frame of reference as long as it is > nonzero in the stationary frame; modern formulations always use rest mass > only, but we should be able to embrace either perspective. One thing to keep in mind: There is no clear-cut distinction between energy and mass. When I heft an apple, it turns out that a lot of its perceived mass is 'actually' binding energies in and between atoms, rather than the sum of the masses of the subatomic particles alone. Comment #13: Re: Terbri issues gleki (Sat Jun 26 14:59:33 2021) krtisfranks wrote: > I did not use grake3. But I read it as specifying the relevant > standard/definition of the gram. Is it the "mass of 1 cm^3 of water" > standard, the "(1/1000) of the mass of the International Prototype > Kilogram" standard, the recent "defining hbar exactly with identified > value" standard, or something else? > > One would have to specify whether rest mass or Relativistic mass is meant, > or specify the frame of reference. So grake is to be used for both rest and relativistic masses. Do you think tilju should be limited to those two masses too? Right now it includes weight. The place structure of relativistic mass would be the same as for majga? Comment #14: Re: Terbri issues Curtis W Franks (Sun Jun 27 04:18:40 2021) gleki wrote: > krtisfranks wrote: > > > I did not use grake3. But I read it as specifying the relevant > > standard/definition of the gram. Is it the "mass of 1 cm^3 of water" > > standard, the "(1/1000) of the mass of the International Prototype > > Kilogram" standard, the recent "defining hbar exactly with identified > > value" standard, or something else? > > > > One would have to specify whether rest mass or Relativistic mass is > meant, > > or specify the frame of reference. > > So grake is to be used for both rest and relativistic masses. > > Do you think tilju should be limited to those two masses too? Right now > it includes weight. > > The place structure of relativistic mass would be the same as for majga? I think that "grake" can be used for all masses and maybe also stresses, energies, or momenta in the right contexts. But definitely masses. Aside from a potential mention of/terbri frame of reference, I do not see any need for different base words for rest and Relativistic masses. Idk about "tilju". I take it to really mean "heavy", as in "having a lot of mass/inertia". It is neither "weight" nor "mass" themselves. Much like "clani" means "long" but not "displacement" (a d kinda not "length"). Comment #15: Re: Terbri issues gleki (Sun Jun 27 14:29:36 2021) krtisfranks wrote: > gleki wrote: > > krtisfranks wrote: > > > > > I did not use grake3. But I read it as specifying the relevant > > > standard/definition of the gram. Is it the "mass of 1 cm^3 of water" > > > standard, the "(1/1000) of the mass of the International Prototype > > > Kilogram" standard, the recent "defining hbar exactly with identified > > > value" standard, or something else? > > > > > > One would have to specify whether rest mass or Relativistic mass is > > meant, > > > or specify the frame of reference. > > > > So grake is to be used for both rest and relativistic masses. > > > > Do you think tilju should be limited to those two masses too? Right > now > > it includes weight. > > > > The place structure of relativistic mass would be the same as for > majga? > > I think that "grake" can be used for all masses and maybe also stresses, > energies, or momenta in the right contexts. But definitely masses. > > Aside from a potential mention of/terbri frame of reference, I do not see > any need for different base words for rest and Relativistic masses. > > Idk about "tilju". I take it to really mean "heavy", as in "having a lot > of mass/inertia". It is neither "weight" nor "mass" themselves. Much like > "clani" means "long" but not "displacement" (a d kinda not "length"). So can you please change the definition if you believe the new terbri is better? I'm not sure what to do with E=mc^2 equivalence. We are still lacking other properties of physical bodies, right? Ideally there should be a page listing them all.