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.