The Expanse

945 readers

4 users here now

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

it_reaches_out@lemmy.world

-6

Reading the books for the first time. How unreasonable is my gripe about thrust "gravity"? (lemmy.ca)

submitted 2 days ago by ech@lemmy.ca 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

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yeah, but the whole point is that the effect felt is the 3rd law in action - one thing pushes against another thing, and that thing pushes back. While gravity can cause that, it's not gravity itself, right? If I catch a ball that's in motion, it's the force I apply to it that stops it, not gravity. Same thing for ships in thrust, or spinning stations. It's all 3rd law in action, not just different versions of gravity.

[–] Smokeless7048@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Yea, but language is about communication, not absolutely precision.

This isn't a scientific paper, this characters and naritive trying to express ideas, and there clarity of intent and idea is more important than scientific rigour.

[–] ech@lemmy.ca 2 points 1 day ago

The term I'm aiming for is for the concept of Newton's 3rd law, not the book.