Review Detail of NovaENT in Ravens of Eternity
Review detail
I am giving the low world background because of the physics problems. The author mentions speeds like 200m/s 100m/s as the maximal speed of some engines. They are in space and in space, there is no terminal velocity other than the speed of light so engines can keep accelerating until they reach it. In space, the speed is almost of no consequence. The only important is relative speed or delta-v (delta velocity). That is a difference of speed between two objects. If the author wants to express the power of engines he/she should express it as acceleration and not speed. Speed starts to matter only in the atmosphere because the friction of air introduces terminal velocity. To surpass this terminal velocity you need to increase engine power and when the speed increases so does the friction so to keep increasing maximal speed you need to increase engine power. In space, there is no friction and therefore no force that limits the maximum achievable speed of shuttler/ space fighter/rocket/missile/escape pod. The only terminal velocity in space is the speed of light and only when objects is moving in relativistic velocities the engine speed maters. So if there is some engine speed limit it should be in percents of C that is about 2000000 m/s upwards and more likely 10000000 m/s and absolutely nowhere as lows 200 m/s. I like the story but these physics problems introduce in me a such massive dissonance. (That is't how reality works like). The other sci fi things aren'T that problematic but this is to me so fundamental that it breaks me out of the story. And it would be so easy to fix it wouldn't affect the story much and I would be glad to give a much higher rating than what I given now.
Ravens of Eternity
CeritusOrbis
Liked by 4 people
LIKEReplies20
I know stories are about characters but since you are writing a story about piloting you should at least use elementary physics correctly (I think they teach this in middle school, or whatever is that called). Then in one chapter you actually talk about newton's first law and then you write that there is a terminal velocity in space. You tagged this as science fiction, not fantasy fiction, but science.
You do realize that this isn't a hard sci fi, right? You do understand that even shows like Star Trek has impossible physics, right? Warp speed isn't actually possible. And that's an award-winning sci-fi show. This is a space opera. Like Star Wars, which has laser swords and mystic powers. Realism is about character emotion, and what pushes them into conflict. Your fetish for "scientific" numbers is meaningless in fiction, or really any story. Take it elsewhere.
NovaENT:I know stories are about characters but since you are writing a story about piloting you should at least use elementary physics correctly (I think they teach this in middle school, or whatever is that called). Then in one chapter you actually talk about newton's first law and then you write that there is a terminal velocity in space. You tagged this as science fiction, not fantasy fiction, but science.
That's what reverse thrusters are for - you cannot accelerate a human being past a certain point or it WILL KILL THEM. Imagine going 200 meters in ONE SECOND (that's 20 g's, btw - but you should have known that, right?). You and people like you seem to think you're being scientifically accurate (not the same as realistic) but you haven't for one second actually thought things through.
NovaENT:In space, you will keep moving even without engine power. Sorry for the rant, it peeves me out. Probably because I used to work in a satellite monitoring center during my studies.
You've exactly proven my point. the ships in the book accelerate at 200m/s. Sustaining it higher is fine once they've reached it. But even then, doing any maneuver is deadly. Yes, the earth and its satellites move very fast. But they don't suddenly change direction. If they did, we'd all be dead. Yet somehow Nova here is stuck on ridiculous semantics that literally have zero bearing on what happens to the characters - the literal most important part of any story. It's plain idiocy.
The content has been deleted
Again, m/s is the unit of velocity (how fast it moves right now), m/s^2 is unit of acceleration (how velocity change). You use units (SI) wrong, thats why others may not understand what you mean.
CeritusOrbis:You've exactly proven my point. the ships in the book accelerate at 200m/s. Sustaining it higher is fine once they've reached it. But even then, doing any maneuver is deadly. Yes, the earth and its satellites move very fast. But they don't suddenly change direction. If they did, we'd all be dead. Yet somehow Nova here is stuck on ridiculous semantics that literally have zero bearing on what happens to the characters - the literal most important part of any story. It's plain idiocy.
You're missing the point. It doesn't matter AT ALL to the progression of the story. Getting hung up on something that has NO BEARING to the development of the characters is idiotic. Literally all other readers understand this very basic concept.
afrometal2:Again, m/s is the unit of velocity (how fast it moves right now), m/s^2 is unit of acceleration (how velocity change). You use units (SI) wrong, thats why others may not understand what you mean.
I don't think I miss the point. Opening statement of the review: 'I am giving the low world background because of the physics problems'. What is pointed as a problem is poor world background, not characters. When posting review 'character design' is just one out of five categories that reviewer evaluates (and 'world background' is also one of them). If properly created 'world background' is of no concern to you, then you should have no problems with ppl giving low rating for this category.
CeritusOrbis:You're missing the point. It doesn't matter AT ALL to the progression of the story. Getting hung up on something that has NO BEARING to the development of the characters is idiotic. Literally all other readers understand this very basic concept.
riiiight, lol. world building means a whole lot more than literal nitpicking over a single term that no-one cares about. anyway, I'm done dealing with toxic, anal-retentive people like you. take it elsewhere.
afrometal2:I don't think I miss the point. Opening statement of the review: 'I am giving the low world background because of the physics problems'. What is pointed as a problem is poor world background, not characters. When posting review 'character design' is just one out of five categories that reviewer evaluates (and 'world background' is also one of them). If properly created 'world background' is of no concern to you, then you should have no problems with ppl giving low rating for this category.
PS the rating isn't all that important, tbh. what really gets me are the people who have no concept of story, and yet complain about meaningless things. kinda like saying "star trek is stupid because teleporters can't possibly exist." its asinine, and completely misses the point.
afrometal2:I don't think I miss the point. Opening statement of the review: 'I am giving the low world background because of the physics problems'. What is pointed as a problem is poor world background, not characters. When posting review 'character design' is just one out of five categories that reviewer evaluates (and 'world background' is also one of them). If properly created 'world background' is of no concern to you, then you should have no problems with ppl giving low rating for this category.
I call misrepresentation. Star Trek was not 'stupid because teleporters can't exist', because at the moment show was released, according to physics theories (at that time), teleportation, however unlikely, might be possible. It's enough for SF. What you are doing is more like saying 'Earth is flat', then comes a guy and says 'look, Earth is not flat, here's why [...]' and you go then 'duh, Earth is flat otherwise ppl at the bottom would fall off, have you heard about ppl falling off you smartass?' then someone explains more how physics works for you and as you can't find convincing arguments so you throw a tantrum, change topic and try to find fault in other person to shut them up. It is human to make a mistake, but if someone makes a mistake and not only can't admit to it, but also attack people that pointed it out (some did it in good faith like Nova guy), then that person must be someone really narcissistic, arrogant, conceited and ego-centric. As a writer I think you heard term 'constructive criticism'. Author of original review offered it to you, pointed where you were wrong, told how you can improve, even said that, beside things he pointed out, he liked the story. And you took that personally.
CeritusOrbis:PS the rating isn't all that important, tbh. what really gets me are the people who have no concept of story, and yet complain about meaningless things. kinda like saying "star trek is stupid because teleporters can't possibly exist." its asinine, and completely misses the point.
afrometal2:I call misrepresentation. Star Trek was not 'stupid because teleporters can't exist', because at the moment show was released, according to physics theories (at that time), teleportation, however unlikely, might be possible. It's enough for SF. What you are doing is more like saying 'Earth is flat', then comes a guy and says 'look, Earth is not flat, here's why [...]' and you go then 'duh, Earth is flat otherwise ppl at the bottom would fall off, have you heard about ppl falling off you smartass?' then someone explains more how physics works for you and as you can't find convincing arguments so you throw a tantrum, change topic and try to find fault in other person to shut them up. It is human to make a mistake, but if someone makes a mistake and not only can't admit to it, but also attack people that pointed it out (some did it in good faith like Nova guy), then that person must be someone really narcissistic, arrogant, conceited and ego-centric. As a writer I think you heard term 'constructive criticism'. Author of original review offered it to you, pointed where you were wrong, told how you can improve, even said that, beside things he pointed out, he liked the story. And you took that personally.
afrometal2:I call misrepresentation. Star Trek was not 'stupid because teleporters can't exist', because at the moment show was released, according to physics theories (at that time), teleportation, however unlikely, might be possible. It's enough for SF. What you are doing is more like saying 'Earth is flat', then comes a guy and says 'look, Earth is not flat, here's why [...]' and you go then 'duh, Earth is flat otherwise ppl at the bottom would fall off, have you heard about ppl falling off you smartass?' then someone explains more how physics works for you and as you can't find convincing arguments so you throw a tantrum, change topic and try to find fault in other person to shut them up. It is human to make a mistake, but if someone makes a mistake and not only can't admit to it, but also attack people that pointed it out (some did it in good faith like Nova guy), then that person must be someone really narcissistic, arrogant, conceited and ego-centric. As a writer I think you heard term 'constructive criticism'. Author of original review offered it to you, pointed where you were wrong, told how you can improve, even said that, beside things he pointed out, he liked the story. And you took that personally.
Why is there gravity then? Just put characters in a void an Let them talk like robots. Realism is important especially you want to have a sci-fi kind of setting
CeritusOrbis:Stories are about characters, not speeds. LOL. Imagine going on a ridiculous rant, completely ignoring what's happening with the characters. This is a fiction, not a physics primer. PS Good job liking your own comments. No-one is fooled.