I like the "electric mass" that Hugh Haskell used in this debate.
We recognized AT LEAST three different masses:
gravitational m --> to calculate a gravitational force on an object
electrical mass (q) --> to calculate an electrical force on an object
inertial mass --> to calculate an acceleration (for F of any kind)
So what is mass? It is an attribute of an object. We invented
the concept sof "masses" to explain, and to quantify, behavior
of objects. I would also be happy if distinct names were
always used for different kinds of "masses", as we do for q.
Physical world consists of objects and fields, masses are
attributes of objects, forces (per unit mass) are attributes
of fields. Acceleration is not a mass, it is a field property.
It does not matter if we express it in m/s^2 or in N/kg. But
unless the sequence of teaching physics changes I will
continue using m/s^2 before I start using N/kg. Should
we teach dynamics before kinematics? I do not think so.
Ludwik Kowalski