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

  • Thread starter Thread starter Master Wayne
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Dark matter Matter
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the grammatical correctness of a sentence related to dark matter and space-time tunnels within the context of a science fiction novel. Participants also touch upon the scientific plausibility of the concepts presented in the sentence.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant asserts that the sentence is grammatically correct but questions the scientific validity of the claim regarding dark matter.
  • Another participant agrees with the grammatical correctness but emphasizes that the use of "for" makes the sentence sound pretentious.
  • A participant suggests that the scientific claims about dark matter are "sketchy" and not entirely plausible, while another counters that "ridiculous" is not synonymous with "sketchy."
  • There is a suggestion that the scientific inaccuracies can be attributed to the fictional nature of the work.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the grammatical correctness of the sentence, but there is disagreement regarding the scientific implications of the concepts discussed, with varying opinions on the appropriateness of the terms used to describe those implications.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty about the scientific feasibility of dark matter interacting in the manner described, highlighting a dependence on current scientific understanding.

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   Reactions: 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   Reactions: 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

  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
20K
  • Poll Poll
  • · Replies 142 ·
5
Replies
142
Views
7K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K