# Worst named scientific concepts **URL:** \ **Category:** Miscellaneous and Personal Stuff I Must Share\ **Created:** [March 29, 2025, 7:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316 "2025-03-29T19:00:05Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Andy\_L](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/c67d28/32.png) [@Andy\_L](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Andy_L)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 9:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/21 "2025-03-29T21:25:49Z")
“Cleared its neighborhood” is misunderstood by anyone who tries to understand it ny reading the words. It’s a term of art in planetary astronomy that’s would be better understood if it were “gravitationally dominates its neighborhood” > **[Clearing the neighbourhood](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood)** > > In celestial mechanics, "clearing the neighbourhood" (or dynamical dominance) around a celestial body's orbit describes the body becoming gravitationally dominant such that there are no other bodies of comparable size other than its natural satellites or those otherwise under its gravitational influence. > "Clearing the neighbourhood" is one of three necessary criteria for a celestial body to be considered a planet in the Solar System, according to the definition adopted in 2006 by the Internation... > As a consequence it does not then share its orbital region with other bodies of significant size, except for its own satellites, or other bodies governed by its own gravitational influence. This latter restriction excludes objects whose orbits may cross but that will never collide with each other due to [orbital resonance](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orbital_resonance), such as [Jupiter](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter) and [its trojans](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jupiter_trojan), [Earth](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth) and [3753 Cruithne](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/3753_Cruithne), or [Neptune](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neptune) and the [plutinos](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plutino).[[3]](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clearing_the_neighbourhood#cite_note-Stern_2002-3) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/22 "2025-03-29T21:29:28Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > I think this is a misunderstanding. The Russian term for what we call a black hole is “frozen star”. As I recall that was one of several Russian attempts to push for a different name than “Black Hole”, “Collapsar” being another. None really caught on outside of Russia. Outside of Russia, a “frozen star” is a type of [hypothetical star](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_star) that may form in the far future. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 9:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/23 "2025-03-29T21:38:32Z")
> [@Andy\_L](#): > > “Cleared its neighborhood” is misunderstood by anyone who tries to understand it ny reading the words. It’s a term of art in planetary astronomy that’s would be better understood if it were “gravitationally dominates its neighborhood” Ah good to know. I remember on TV’s _QI_ they summarized a scientist’s opinion that perhaps earth and the moon should be considered binary co-planets (or some term like that) because Earth hadn’t “cleared its neighbourhood” of the moon. Most likely of course the scientist’s argument was based more around our moon being relatively large, as satellites go, compared to the body it orbits. But at some point the concept of clearing the neighbourhood had come up, and either the QI team, or the scientist, had misunderstood it. (Third option is I’m misremembering this) ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 9:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/24 "2025-03-29T21:47:32Z")
I’ve never been crazy about “weak nuclear force”. I mean, this is one of the fundamental forces of existence we’re talking about here. There’s no need to be insulting. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 9:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/25 "2025-03-29T21:53:42Z")
I wonder if the term “gravity assist” in the context of the orbital mechanics of spacecraft might be considered another bad name, and certainly potentially misleading. When I first heard the term as a kid I wondered why this was so valuable, since the speed you gained by the gravitational attraction of a planet en route to somewhere else would be lost again as you departed. Still, if that’s all it meant, it would still be useful because your average speed overall would have increased. But it generally means something quite different. It generally means essentially stealing some of a large orbiting body’s kinetic energy to accelerate (or sometimes decelerate) the spacecraft, and possibly change its trajectory as well in a desired direction, all without using any rocket fuel. A term like “gravitational slingshot” is maybe more descriptive. It’s not gravity _per se_ that helps the spacecraft along, it’s its ability to tap into the kinetic energy of the large orbiting body. The pic below for Voyager 2 illustrates the concept. [![](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Animation_of_Voyager_2_trajectory.gif/330px-Animation_of_Voyager_2_trajectory.gif) ](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/1d/Animation_of_Voyager_2_trajectory.gif/330px-Animation_of_Voyager_2_trajectory.gif) ---
**Author:** ![mixdenny](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mixdenny/32/2962_2.png) [@mixdenny](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mixdenny)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 9:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/26 "2025-03-29T21:55:33Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > Black Holes are no such thing. They are not holes leading to anything. Just poor science fiction writing. And still it goes on. What else would they be called? A Black Point? A Black Sphere? I think a hole that everything gets drawn into is OK. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/27 "2025-03-29T21:57:59Z")
> [@Alessan](#): > > I’ve never been crazy about “weak nuclear force”. I mean, this is one of the fundamental forces of existence we’re talking about here. Also, it’s stronger than gravity so calling it “weak” is a bit misleading. ---
**Author:** ![Exapno\_Mapcase](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/exapno_mapcase/32/1051_2.png) [@Exapno\_Mapcase](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Exapno_Mapcase)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/28 "2025-03-29T22:01:42Z")
Our galaxy is called the Milky Way. Not only is that a ridiculous name, but it’s extremely Eurocentric, since other parts of the world had their own terms for it. Even English at one time. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/29 "2025-03-29T22:07:03Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > Outside of Russia, a “frozen star” is a type of [hypothetical star](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypothetical_star) that may form in the far future. The term frozen star referring to what we now call black holes does appear in the older literature. Referencing what an external observer would see for an object falling into an event horizon, and before it was shown that for an infalling observer the proper time to reach the singularity would be finite. > [@wolfpup](#): > > I wonder if the term “gravity assist” in the context of the orbital mechanics of spacecraft might be considered another bad name, and certainly potentially misleading. It also gets conflated with the [Oberth Effect](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberth_effect) ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/30 "2025-03-29T22:08:31Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > The term frozen star referring to what we now call black holes does appear in the older literature. So does “collapsar”; that doesn’t mean they ever really caught on outside Russia. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/31 "2025-03-29T22:10:42Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > Our galaxy is called the Milky Way. Not only is that a ridiculous name It might seem less ridiculous if we had clear skies like we had when the Milky Way was named, skies unobstructed by air pollution and light pollution, where you can clearly see the milky patch in the night sky that is part of our own galaxy. It’s a romantic term from earlier times when I presume people didn’t understand what it was. ---
**Author:** ![Mijin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mijin/32/9369_2.png) [@Mijin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mijin)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/32 "2025-03-29T22:13:21Z")
Most names are comparably silly though. Apparently in England it was referred to as the Walsingham Way after some random shrine in Norfolk (another “Everest” style naming). Best would have been adopting the Chinese or Japanese names, which are either “Silver River” or “River of Heaven”. ETA: I don’t think it matters too much if proper nouns have silly names though. Eventually the name just becomes associated to the thing, not the etymology. > **[Milky Way | Common names](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Common_names)** > > 1."Birds' Path" is used in several Uralic and Turkic languages and in the Baltic languages. Northern peoples observed that migratory birds follow the course of the galaxy while migrating at the Northern Hemisphere. The name "Birds' Path" (in Finnish, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Bashkir and Kazakh) has some variations in other languages, e.g. "Way of the grey (wild) goose" in Chuvash, Mari and Tatar and "Way of the Crane" in Erzya and Moksha. | > 2.House river: The Kaurna people of the Adela ---
**Author:** ![dougrb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/76d3ee/32.png) [@dougrb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dougrb)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/33 "2025-03-29T22:17:02Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Fundamentally and by definition, it cannot possibly convey any information about anything inside the black hole. I’m currently reading this book by Thomas Hertog, who worked with Hawking up until his death. Hawking originally thought information was lost but ended up changing his mind. I can’t even begin to summarize the reason but it has to due with quantum entanglement and “holograms”. One thing I do tend to side with Hawking on is “No Multiverses”. Sorry Brian Greene. That’s another book I’m reading now. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On\_the\_Origin\_of\_Time](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_Origin_of_Time) ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/34 "2025-03-29T22:19:11Z")
> [@Exapno\_Mapcase](#): > > but it’s extremely Eurocentric, since other parts of the world had their own terms for it. I don’t understand. If it’s called different things in different languages, why is what it’s called in one language (English) any worse? ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/35 "2025-03-29T22:22:29Z")
> [@Mijin](#): > > **Big bang:** Not an explosion, and is a continuing process, not an instance of time (usually…I know now it sometimes gets used interchangeably to refer to the t=0 moment) Well, they could have called it a physical theory that describes how the universe expanded from an initial state of high density and temperature, but that wouldn’t have been a very good name for a television show. ---
**Author:** ![Alessan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/alessan/32/465_2.png) [@Alessan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Alessan)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/36 "2025-03-29T22:22:37Z")
I mean, our planet is called “dirt”. ---
**Author:** ![Lumpy](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lumpy/32/446_2.png) [@Lumpy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lumpy)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/37 "2025-03-29T22:25:01Z")
Technically it’s called “ground”, as in “the ground” v. “the sky”. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/38 "2025-03-29T22:33:35Z")
> [@Dallas\_Jones](#): > > Black Holes are no such thing. They are not holes leading to anything. Just poor science fiction writing. And still it goes on. > > A deep gravity well with no escape. And “hole” and “well” aren’t synonymous enough for you? > [@WildaBeast](#): > > But in fact black holes are pretty much the opposite of nothingness; they’re incredibly dense. Well… Yes and no. Everywhere in space, a black hole is made entirely out of vacuum. There’s nowhere that there’s any mass at all. It’s just that there’s a lot of mass in that nowhere. > [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As I recall that was one of several Russian attempts to push for a different name than “Black Hole”, “Collapsar” being another. In the West, a “collapsar” is a hypothetical object that forms instead of a black hole, because some folks don’t like the theoretical issues with black holes, and so decided to invent something with much worse theoretical issues. > [@Alessan](#): > > I’ve never been crazy about “weak nuclear force”. I mean, this is one of the fundamental forces of existence we’re talking about here. There’s no need to be insulting. For that matter, using the word “force” for the fundamental interactions is a bit misleading, too. On the macroscopic scale, when objects interact, you usually have the same (or almost the same) objects coming out of the interaction as going in, with all that’s changed being their momenta. Forces change momentum, so we call the interaction a force. But in particle physics, quite often, what comes out doesn’t remotely resemble what went in, and what’s most interesting is the change in what particles you have at all. ---
**Author:** ![Wendell\_Wagner](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/8491ac/32.png) [@Wendell\_Wagner](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Wendell_Wagner)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/39 "2025-03-29T22:37:23Z")
> [@Lumpy](#): > > Technically it’s called “ground”, as in “the ground” v. “the sky”. The word “eorþe” in Old English could mean ground, soil, dirt, dry land, country, district, material world, or the abode of man ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 29, 2025, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316/40 "2025-03-29T22:39:02Z")
> [@Chronos](#): > > In the West, a “collapsar” is a hypothetical object that forms instead of a black hole, because some folks don’t like the theoretical issues with black holes, and so decided to invent something with much worse theoretical issues. It’s more that they re-used the name; originally it was used as an alternate term for black holes. You used to see it in sci-fi sometimes. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/worst-named-scientific-concepts/1016316.md?page=3)