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.