Hey! So i'm curious to know y'all's opinions on this matter: say you have a mechanism for an explosion which, if you attempted to explain it fully, would be very long and technical. However, you can set it up much shorter and briefer - most readers will understand it and be fine with it - but with a trade-off: experts in that field will call you out because that normally doesn't work. It only works because of [insert long technical explanation] which you didn't include, because no normal reader cares about it.
I know one answer is: "don't include an explosion which requires this long technical explanation to appease experts!" But i'm including it. So, more importantly: would you, as a reader, care if I went with the short, brief explanation? Context: it's about how a plane explodes while re-fueling. It's scientifically sound, but not normal and would require in-depth technical explanation to describe why. But I just list the basic mechanism and go with it.
I know one answer is: "don't include an explosion which requires this long technical explanation to appease experts!" But i'm including it. So, more importantly: would you, as a reader, care if I went with the short, brief explanation? Context: it's about how a plane explodes while re-fueling. It's scientifically sound, but not normal and would require in-depth technical explanation to describe why. But I just list the basic mechanism and go with it.