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.\%\%\%