4 ms·

Well, it's not strictly a bad idea to name it by some unique name if it turns out to be the case that another, better, more rigorous theory or set of observatio

Well, it's not strictly a bad idea to name it by some unique name if it turns out to be the case that another, better, more rigorous theory or set of observations is developed about the cause and range/extent of morphologies associated with the torque that makes the concept of Yakolevian Torque obsolete.

knolax 7y ago
If the concept of Yakolevian Torque becomes obselete we'll just stop referring to it regardless of how it's named. If it only needs to be updated in a way that obseletes the older descriptional name we can just give it a newer more apt descriptional name.
- blueprint 7y ago
  Kind of like Newtonian mechanics?
  - knolax 7y ago
    You mean Classical Mechanics? Plus your example doesn't make sense because the term "Newtonian Mechanics" was likely coined only after Relativistic Mechanics were discovered[0][1], Newton himself referred to it as "Natural Philosophy". In addition "Newtonian Mechanics" isn't even the preferred name, Wikipedia refers to it as "Classical Mechanics"[2] while the Webster's definition of "Newtonian Mechanics"[3] is just the words "Classical Mechanics", which themselves have a much longer entry[4]. The fact that we do not in fact refer to "Classical Mechanics" as "Philosophiae Naturalis" actually supports my point: as our understanding of Physics improved we renamed the field, with older concepts/terms falling out of use and being renamed when they are reused. [0] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Newtonian+Mechanics&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CNewtonian%20Mechanics%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CNewtonian%20Mechanics%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Newtonian+Mech... [1] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Natural+Philosophy&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CNatural%20Philosophy%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Natural+Philos... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newtonian_Mechanics&redirect=no https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newtonian_Mechani... [3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Newtonian%20mechanics https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Newtonian%20mecha... [4] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/classical%20mechanics https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/classical%20mecha...
    - blueprint 7y ago
      Crazy how you knew exactly what I was talking about.
      - knolax 7y ago
        Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never claimed that you can't use an arbitrary name to convey information. You can call it Classical Mechanics "gleeebnok" and people will understand you long as they can look up "gleeebnok" but that doesn't mean it's not a dumb name.

knolax 7y ago

If the concept of Yakolevian Torque becomes obselete we'll just stop referring to it regardless of how it's named. If it only needs to be updated in a way that obseletes the older descriptional name we can just give it a newer more apt descriptional name.

blueprint 7y ago
Kind of like Newtonian mechanics?
- knolax 7y ago
  You mean Classical Mechanics? Plus your example doesn't make sense because the term "Newtonian Mechanics" was likely coined only after Relativistic Mechanics were discovered[0][1], Newton himself referred to it as "Natural Philosophy". In addition "Newtonian Mechanics" isn't even the preferred name, Wikipedia refers to it as "Classical Mechanics"[2] while the Webster's definition of "Newtonian Mechanics"[3] is just the words "Classical Mechanics", which themselves have a much longer entry[4]. The fact that we do not in fact refer to "Classical Mechanics" as "Philosophiae Naturalis" actually supports my point: as our understanding of Physics improved we renamed the field, with older concepts/terms falling out of use and being renamed when they are reused. [0] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Newtonian+Mechanics&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CNewtonian%20Mechanics%3B%2Cc0#t1%3B%2CNewtonian%20Mechanics%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Newtonian+Mech... [1] https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Natural+Philosophy&year_start=1800&year_end=2000&corpus=15&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CNatural%20Philosophy%3B%2Cc0 https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Natural+Philos... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newtonian_Mechanics&redirect=no https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Newtonian_Mechani... [3] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Newtonian%20mechanics https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Newtonian%20mecha... [4] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/classical%20mechanics https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/classical%20mecha...
  - blueprint 7y ago
    Crazy how you knew exactly what I was talking about.
    - knolax 7y ago
      Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what you're getting at. I never claimed that you can't use an arbitrary name to convey information. You can call it Classical Mechanics "gleeebnok" and people will understand you long as they can look up "gleeebnok" but that doesn't mean it's not a dumb name.