Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
On 11/20/2006 01:56 PM, Hugh Haskell wrote:
and they are at least a little prepared for the additional. ^^^^^^^^
complexity introduced by the fact that electrical mass is not the
same as inertial mass.
I hope that's a typo; previously the correspondence was
electrical mass <--> gravitational mass
which made more sense.
Typos aside, I'm not endorsing that approach, but /if/ you are wedded
to that approach, here is a constructive suggestion: Rather than
introducing the idea of electrical mass, go the other way:
electricity gravity
inertial mass inertial mass (or just "mass")
electrical charge gravitational charge
(conventionally called
gravitational mass)
This is more-nearly-standard terminology. It is conventional in
many areas to speak of the field-coupling parameter as a generalized
charge, e.g. the "color charge" in quantum chromodynamics.