User talk:Phancy Physicist
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Battle against the terms "snap/crackle/pop" in physics.
I am adding this to my discussion page since I am sure that as I remove the references there are going to be questions why. So the following are my reasons:
- I am a physicist by trade and have never heard the term used in any class or talk I have attended
- I have never seen it in any book I read or taught from.
- All references I have found supporting "snap/crackle/pop" all come back to this webpage []. And in the text of this page it says:
- "Another less serious suggestion is snap (symbol s), crackle (symbol c) and pop (symbol p) for the 4th, 5th and 6th derivatives respectively." and "Needless to say, none of these are in any kind of standards, yet. We just made them up on usenet."
- The admins agree to some degree since the crackle page was deleted.
- "To support an article about a particular term or concept we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term or concept, not books and papers that use the term." --Wikipedia:NEO#Neologisms
- I'm here after watching this; http://www.ted.com/talks/vijay_kumar_robots_that_fly_and_cooperate.html he uses the word 'snap' instead of jounce. In this paper www.seas.upenn.edu/~dmel/mellingerICRA11.pdf he describes snap as 'the second derivative of acceleration' and as the 'fourth derivative of position'. Furthermore, 'snap fourth derivative' has 900,000 results in google (16,000 in google scholar), while 'jounce fourth derivative' has 50,000 (200 in google scholar). While I understand that these might not be 'books and papers about the term' but 'books and papers that use the term', the same criticism applies to the word 'jounce', doesn't it? Why are you so keen on the word 'jounce'? I think the page should be moved. Brocerius (talk) 07:26, 18 November 2012 (UTC)
- I agree with you that Jounce should be held up to the same scrutiny as Snap. I have only be so keen on warring against "snap, crackle, and pop" because of the obvious connection to the cereal selling characters and the fact that only source being used was the above mentioned article. Since this slogan was invented in the 1930s, I'm pretty sure Newton never used these terms.
- All joking aside, as I said on the various discussion pages before, if someone can find a text book or solid source for the term snap as the fourth position derivative or some how show that it is a commonly used term for the fourth derivative, then the term wont fall under Wikipedia:NEO#Neologisms.
- I found one website that indicated that "snap, crackle and pop" might have become a popular term in cam engineering some time after the 1930s but so far I have found no proof. Please if you can find actual solid sources for snap as a term for the fourth derivative, I would support the inclusion of it on Wikipedia whole heartedly.
- Phancy Physicist (talk) 06:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)