Dark Matter & Space-Time Tunnels: Is Grammar OK?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Master Wayne
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dark matter Matter
AI Thread Summary
The sentence in question is grammatically correct, but it raises concerns about scientific accuracy and tone. The use of "for" is perceived as pretentious, and the concept of large amounts of dark matter being gathered in one place is considered scientifically implausible, given current understanding of dark matter's properties. The discussion emphasizes the distinction between grammatical correctness and scientific feasibility, with some participants noting that while the grammar is fine, the scientific premise is questionable. Overall, the feedback suggests that while the sentence works linguistically, it may not align well with established scientific principles.
Master Wayne
Messages
26
Reaction score
3
Hey, guys. I'm writing a science fiction novel and would like to know if you guys think there's anything wrong with the grammar in this sentence:

"Space-time tunnels required large amounts of dark matter to stay open, and they could not be closed during the course of the mission, for it took even more of the precious material to create them from scratch."

Sounds okay to me. But is it?

Thanks in advance!
 
  • Like
Likes Eternally
Physics news on Phys.org
Grammatically, it's a completely correct structure, but the "for" makes it sound pretentious and of course scientifically it sounds ridiculous since dark matter doesn't interact with anything so getting large amounts of it in one place would be impossible as far as we currently know.
 
phinds said:
Grammatically, it's a completely correct structure, but the "for" makes it sound pretentious and of course scientifically it sounds ridiculous since dark matter doesn't interact with anything so getting large amounts of it in one place would be impossible as far as we currently know.


Thanks a lot for the feedback, phinds!

I'll just ascribe that idea to the "fiction" part of "science fiction". After all, scientific knowledge is always "as far as we know". :)
 
  • Like
Likes Eternally
What Phinds is saying is *NO*, it's not right.
 
Evo said:
What Phinds is saying is *NO*, it's not right.

No, Evo, he said it's grammatically correct. Scientifically sketchy.
 
Master Wayne said:
No, Evo, he said it's grammatically correct. Scientifically sketchy.

Grammatically, yes. "Sketchy" no. "Ridiculous" does not equal "sketchy"
 
This thread is done.
 

Similar threads

Are Dark Matter Bombs a Scientific Possibility?
Replies
19
Views
19K
Outside Space-time sci-fi genres
Replies
22
Views
3K
The Human Body as a Dark Matter Detector
Replies
3
Views
2K
A Dark matter and the fabric of space time,
Replies
2
Views
2K
B Discuss Dark Matter & Light: Photons Affecting Space-Time?
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Is It Time to Rethink Our Models of Dark Energy and Dark Matter?
Replies
2
Views
1K
I Dark Matter: Can Gravitational Field Be Generated?
Replies
3
Views
2K
I Does space have its own density?
Replies
1
Views
2K
I Integrity of matter / space and time
Replies
13
Views
4K
I Dark matter and acoustic peaks in the CMB
Replies
4
Views
3K

Hot Threads

Recent Insights

Back
Top