this post was submitted on 25 Aug 2026
-6 points (20.0% liked)
The Expanse
945 readers
4 users here now
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
Is it meant to be scientific? Or is it meant to quickly communicate a concept in a sci-fi?
Why can't it be both?
Depends what the author cares about, I guess?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I already explained why it's different. I'd also have an issue with people calling lift on an airplane "anti-gravity".
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.
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
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.
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.
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.