-8
Reading the books for the first time. How unreasonable is my gripe about thrust "gravity"? (lemmy.ca)
submitted 2 months ago by to c/theexpanse@lemmy.world
35 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

With the show being one of my favorites, I'm happy to say that I'm really enjoying the novels as well. That said, it keeps bugging me when the term "thrust gravity" is always used to describe something that's explicitly Newton's 3rd law - ie, not gravity. I'm probably not understanding something, but it bugs me to see a series that makes a point to be at least reasonably scientific to use a term that seems so wrong.

Side note: How come the third law missed out on natural feeling shorthand? 1st - inertia. 2nd - f=ma. 3rd - ???. Feels like something got overlooked there.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[+] [S] -7 points 2 months ago (13 children)

One's a marketing title while another is meant to be scientific. Those aren't really comparable.

If it was just used in dialogue, I don't think I'd mind as much, but the narration uses it like it's scientific nomenclature. Maybe it is the best term for the effect, but it leaves me unsatisfied.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 13 child comments
    •
  • [–] 8 points 2 months ago (6 children)

    It is probably just to make it simple to understand without being awkward. To always have to say that it is thrust causing acceleration that mimics the force of gravity is way too long. It gets the idea across succinctly, and it is a novel not a scientific paper.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [+] [S] -6 points 2 months ago (5 children)

    Where did I say it should be long and awkward? Words are invented all the time to convey more complicated concepts. It doesn't seem unreasonable to suggest that could have been done here.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (4 children)

    So you'd prefer they invent a word instead of using existing words that are easily understood by the reader? How would that improve anything? It wouldn't be any more scientifically accurate, and would be harder to understand.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -3 points 2 months ago (3 children)

    Sure. My only issue is that it's scientifically inaccurate, so I don't see a problem with that. Writers invent words all the time and I don't really consider it confusing as long as they're adequately explained at some point.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    So the author invented calling it thrust gravity. How is that different than explaining it and saying it is something like t-grav? They are both made up names for the same thing. And there is a scientifically accurate description of what is happening in the book. So I still am failing to see how using a different name is more or less accurate.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -1 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    My only issue is that it’s scientifically inaccurate

    I already explained why it's different. I'd also have an issue with people calling lift on an airplane "anti-gravity".

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 3 points 2 months ago

    It isn't different. Thrust gravity and t-grav are both made up names for a concept that was accurately described in the book. So they are both equally accurate since there is nothing scientific about a made up name.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 months ago (2 children)

    Those aren’t really comparable.

    Buddy...

    If you don't think science chops phrases up as much as the military invents acronyms...

    You're going to be very confused with realistic sci-fi

    but the narration uses it like it’s scientific nomenclature.

    Right, but it explains lots of things as if the reader is familiar, right?

    When they say "ship" do you picture a boat instead of a "spaceship"?

    It's all the same thing. This is like if you argued that "get to the ship" is bad writing because in your head your picturing something different. That's fine, everyone does that.

    But you're insisting your interpretation is right, and refusing any of interpretation that solves your issues with your own.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] [S] -4 points 2 months ago (1 child)

    Ah, that's my problem - I don't understand how basic shorthand or creative writing works because I've apparently never read anything else in my life. Clearly you're right and I'm wrong in this discussion about something else entirely. Congratulations, you win.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 months ago

    I suddenly understand why you don't understand basic concepts...

    Everyone in this thread is trying to explain the same thing to you in different ways, and you're treating each one as the other person being the problem and refusing to step back and ask yourself if it's even possible you're wrong and everyone else is right.

    Everyone in this thread "wins" if you understand this, but that's clearly not going to work.

    So I'll block you, and never accidentally put time into helping you again.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent