I don't agree that it is a great show if you enjoy physics. In fact, I'd say the show does a headfake towards physics which leads people to think it is reasonable.
It is "good physics" the same way _The Martian_ is good physics. Neither is actually close....but they're far better than you see in Battlestar Galactica.
It's all relative, I mean we're using a benchmark of all previous television scifi having "magical antigravity technology where every ship has standard gravity pulling everything to the interior decks"... It's not a really high benchmark to meet to have at least a LITTLE BIT of plausible science, like spaceships oriented like flying office blocks with internal ladders/elevators, and thrust gravity.
I don't remember The Martian movie having many examples of bad physics (other than a "severe windstorm" on a planet with very thin atmosphere; a mistake carried over from the book). It just didn't mention a lot of the science that made the book interesting.
I don't remember too many glaring examples from The Expanse either. They generally have artificial gravity when under thrust and not when they don't. When slowing down, they generally have the engines pointed towards the thing they're approaching. The characters in high-G maneuvers don't look the way people would actually look in those situations, but that's hard to fake without actually sticking actors in a centrifuge so I'm willing to give them a pass.
Scientific accuracy isn't really the focus of the show, though. It's a show set in space that needs reasonably accurate physics in order to have a plausible setting and not detract from the the story and the characters.
I'm gonna have to disagree here. Sometime back in season 2 or 3 they had a shot where a rocket engine's flame cone passed through a girder and it lit up due to the change in temperature. I mean, that's borderline nerd pornography.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnpQCIDePh8