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.