# A Gravity Pit (for warping the SDMB and its purpose by being a bumptious prick)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721
**Category:** The BBQ Pit
**Created:** [November 24, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721 "2010-11-24T00:41:11Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 12:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/1 "2010-11-24T00:41:11Z")
Our resident polymath, **Stranger on a Train** , is, no doubt, a pretty smart fellow. He knows lots about lots with many here having remarked on the breadth and depth of his knowledge. I share their adulation, but only regarding his intellect and vast understanding. In terms of his “interpersonal skills”, or stated in a less contrived way, in terms of his manners, he is actually one of the more stupid people on these Boards.
What I mean by the last sentence above is nicely illustrated in this thread entitled, [Gravity’s attraction and 2 ships attraction](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=586551), which is currently active in GQ. As one often does when opening a thread in GQ, the OP of this one, **kanicbird** , implicitly admits his ignorance by posting the question. In this case the question was more of a very preliminary, almost intuitive, and absolutely non-rigorous description of a ‘new’ approach to gravity. Regardless, **kanicbird** , by posting it and posing it, was bascially saying, “Is there anything to this? I don’t know enough to take it further. Can you advise me. Can you teach me”. And, what responses did this ‘question(s)’ engender?
It is instructive to compare the good **Chronos** ’ answer with that of the **Stranger** :
> [@Chronos](#):
>
> Feynman mentioned this as a potential explanation for gravity, once. It doesn’t actually work, but it’s really hard to show that, since it gets most of the qualitative effects right.
Note how Chronos has acknowledged (by alluding to Feynman) that, indeed, others have wondered along similar lines. But, he simultaneously sets **kanicbird** straight. All done without condescension or aggression.
> [@Stranger](#):
>
> There is already a very elegant, extremely well-tested theory that characterizes the behavior of gravity upon mass and energy, to wit, general relativity. While we don’t know what gravity “is” in a fundamental sense (i.e. why the presence of mass causes distortions in the metric tensor) but we can describe its behavior in nearly all scenarios and scales save for at the level of fundamental particles, which would require a quantum theory of gravity. Invoking a nebulous aether that is blocked by other masses and causes some apparent attraction is neither rigorous nor particularly useful. For what it is worth, the theory sounds similar to the “pushing gravity” hypothesis promoted by Nicolas Fatio de Duillier and later Georges-Louis Le Sage. There are a significant number of problems with the theory that made it unpalatable even before a modern working theory of gravity was developed.
Note the sarcasm and impatience displayed (“There is already a very elegant theory . . .”; “Invoking a nebulous aether . . .”). Not a terribly empathic way of responding to an honestly asked question. But, not totally jerkish. That came in his next post.
> [@Stranger (next post)](#):
>
> This is a particularly inane statement, especially coming from the o.p. who postulates an undemonstrated and unnecessary mechanism for gravity based only upon analogy, with no attempt at a rigorous definition of the mechanics and no conception of why said theory has been dismissed in the past.
So, the OP is being “inane” for asking a (follow up) question and is criticized for not doing, or attempting to do, what only a trained physicist could (i.e. “no attempt at a rigorous definition of the mechanics and no conception of why said theory has been dismissed in the past”), and which he obviously has no chance of accomplishing (indeed, his OP itself proves it - **Stranger** has said as much in his dismissal of it).
I am always amazed that people can respond to another person’s honest request, or quest, for understanding in such a condescending and arrogant manner. After all, even to me, a person of much more modest abilities, it seems self-evident that you don’t attack a person for admitting they don’t know. On the contrary, you encourage them to ask. You find the kernel of “truth” or understanding in their question (to encourage them and reassure them that they’re not stupid), and use that as a starting point to teach them a thing or two.
I guess the ‘bottom line’ is that I’m disappointed that anyone can lambaste anyone else because the question they asked was “inane”. To me, that’s Pedagogy 101 and should therefore be known, or even intuited, by a person of **Stranger** ’s enormous talents.
---
### Author:  [@Shagnasty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shagnasty)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/2 "2010-11-24T01:07:01Z")
This has got to be the nerdiest Pit in the history of the SDMB by far. You are writing it like it is a letter to the editor of a major academic journal which this is not.
I do understand your point in general. It isn’t very fun asking someone about the best watch to buy and getting a lecture of the theory of relativity as part of that answer but **Stranger on a Train** doesn’t usually do that. The OP asked an actual physics question with real answers and work on done in that field. It was acknowledged that some prominent people offered theories that were similar to the OP and why they are wrong. If you ask a fundamental physics question in particular, you have to be prepared for what you get because it isn’t always intuitive at all and there aren’t good analogies that people can easily understand.
Both **Chronos** and **Stranger on a Train** are usually good at explaining things so that most people can understand them but sometimes there isn’t a good way. The level of insult you are pitting is completely dorky but you are a smart person too so you may be used to be feeling slighted by such things. Most people don’t.
---
### Author:  [@xenophon41](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/xenophon41)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/3 "2010-11-24T01:13:13Z")
Nice way of making it seem like those two **Stranger** posts came close to each other, after a simple question from **kanicbird** and one “followup” question. That’s not even close to what actually occured.
I’d recommend people read the thread before evaluating **Stranger** ’s comments for bad manners.
---
### Author:  [@Crafter\_Man](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crafter_Man)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/4 "2010-11-24T01:17:05Z")
Sorry **Karl** , but this is a very weak and unwarranted pitting. Surly you can think of someone more worthy?
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/5 "2010-11-24T01:22:27Z")
**kanicbird** , in his long history on the SDMB, has demonstrated an innate inability to be honest. I guess the bottom line for me is that after your long history on the SDMB, you are unaware that **kanicbird** always posts with an agenda in mind, said agenda consisting of his unique view of God and spirituallity.
In fact, the post from **kanicbird** (which you did not quote) that **Stranger** is responding to mentions God, and you ignore the latter’s detailed refutation of the comparison in order to focus on the word “inane”.
The word “inane”, along with many other words available in the English language that demonstrate idiocy, monomania, and blatheringness in general, are perfectly appropriate to apply to the OP of the thread you reference.
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/6 "2010-11-24T01:32:36Z")
He was nicer than the 3 or 4 posts I didn’t submit.
---
### Author:  [@KarlGauss](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KarlGauss)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/7 "2010-11-24T01:34:18Z")
> [@Frank](#):
>
> **kanicbird** , in his long history on the SDMB, has demonstrated an innate inability to be honest. I guess the bottom line for me is that after your long history on the SDMB, you are unaware that **kanicbird** always posts with an agenda in mind, said agenda consisting of his unique view of God and spirituallity.
>
> In fact, the post from **kanicbird** (which you did not quote) that **Stranger** is responding to mentions God, and you ignore the latter’s detailed refutation of the comparison in order to focus on the word “inane”.
>
> The word “inane”, along with many other words available in the English language that demonstrate idiocy, monomania, and blatheringness in general, are perfectly appropriate to apply to the OP of the thread you reference.
I was unaware of this (or had forgotten in my senescence).
**Mr.Mod** : As the OP, and as part of a long Pit tradition, may I ask that you please close this thread. My criticism is unfounded and the pitting is not appropriate.
Thanks!
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/8 "2010-11-24T01:34:33Z")
> [@Frank](#):
>
> **kanicbird** , in his long history on the SDMB, has demonstrated an innate inability to be honest. I guess the bottom line for me is that after your long history on the SDMB, you are unaware that **kanicbird** always posts with an agenda in mind, said agenda consisting of his unique view of God and spirituallity.
Yeah, I just figured kanicbird was asking some fundamental (and as-yet unexplained and possibly unexplainable) questions about the nature of gravity in hopes of getting a “gotcha” moment where he says “if you admit you don’t understand gravity, how can you claim there’s no God?”
I was tempted to drive-by with “Gravity is Jesus, duh” but resisted.
---
### Author:  [@BigT](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BigT)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/9 "2010-11-24T01:34:53Z")
I’m glad for a nerdy pit thread. It’s nice to see a pitting that could not have just as easily come from people with the ignorance we are trying to fight. I know that people tend to become stupider when they get angry, myself included, but it’s still refreshing to see someone keep a level head.
I do think it is a misrepresentation, though. Yes, using a loaded word such as inane is not a good idea, as it has negative connotations to the target, but it’s clearly just a verbal misstep.
I think that the OP may be a bit overly sensitive, since **kanicbird** is a poster that is often made fun of. But, by that same token, I think that means that **kanicbird** is made of tougher stuff. If he has a problem with it, he can report it.
ETA: Well, apparently I am wrong. The sensitivity is because the OP doesn’t know of **kanicbird** ’s history. That said, I don’t think the right way to respond to **kanicbird** is with such passive aggressive tactics. If you want to call him inane, do so–don’t couch it in it just being his comments.
---
### Author:  [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/10 "2010-11-24T01:46:19Z")
This is the second most off-target Pitting I’ve seen in the last two weeks.
**Stranger on a Train** is one of a diminishing group of valuable posters who actually contribute these things called _answers and content_ to the Straight Dope Message Board. (for the record, the OP here, **KarlGauss** , is another excellent poster in that same vein). **Stranger’s** responses in that GQ thread were harsher than normal, but on-target, especially given the posting history of the person he was addressing.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/11 "2010-11-24T01:47:00Z")
> [@Bryan\_Ekers](#):
>
> Yeah, I just figured kanicbird was asking some fundamental (and as-yet unexplained and possibly unexplainable) questions about the nature of gravity in hopes of getting a “gotcha” moment where he says “if you admit you don’t understand gravity, how can you claim there’s no God?”
Post #14 of that thread pretty much confirms that **kanicbird** was going for a “gotcha”.
---
### Author:  [@Frank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Frank)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/12 "2010-11-24T01:52:01Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> That said, I don’t think the right way to respond to **kanicbird** is with such passive aggressive tactics. If you want to call him inane, do so–don’t couch it in it just being his comments.
What was passive-agressive about it? **Stranger** was both blunt and expressive in his refutation. Did you actually read the post?
---
### Author:  [@Grey](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Grey)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/13 "2010-11-24T01:52:22Z")
> [@BigT](#):
>
> I’m glad for a nerdy pit thread. It’s nice to see a pitting that could not have just as easily come from people with the ignorance we are trying to fight. I know that people tend to become stupider when they get angry, myself included, but it’s still refreshing to see someone keep a level head.
>
> I do think it is a misrepresentation, though. Yes, using a loaded word such as inane is not a good idea, as it has negative connotations to the target, but it’s clearly just a verbal misstep.
>
> I think that the OP may be a bit overly sensitive, since **kanicbird** is a poster that is often made fun of. But, by that same token, I think that means that **kanicbird** is made of tougher stuff. If he has a problem with it, he can report it.
>
> ETA: Well, apparently I am wrong. The sensitivity is because the OP doesn’t know of **kanicbird** ’s history. That said, I don’t think the right way to respond to **kanicbird** is with such passive aggressive tactics. If you want to call him inane, do so–don’t couch it in it just being his comments.
No, **kanicbird** is being a moron a la Eco. First the dimwit mewls about how since we’ve never detected a graviton based on predictions from the extended Standard Model his fucking dumb ass idea of spacetime wave from undetected, hypothetical microworm holes which emerge from no theory at all is a much better path.
Does he ask about bulk graviton detection through gravity waves or how exactly quantum field theory can even be extended to cover such an incredibly weak force like gravity with sufficient confidence to warrant it’s general acceptance? Nope.
He mushes together some sciency words like microworm holes (proven! :rolleyes: ) and quatum tunneling in a bizarre triumphant anticlimatic ta da! Dummy.
---
### Author:  [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 2:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/14 "2010-11-24T02:05:49Z")
Heh, yeah! What a dumbass! Right?
---
### Author:  [@DarrenS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DarrenS)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 2:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/15 "2010-11-24T02:07:07Z")
To me it comes across more as the almost-standardized, cold, detached tone of a peer criticizing a scientific paper. Not personally insulting, but indifferent to the writer’s feelings, and addressing nothing but the content of the writer’s opinions.
And, this is [far](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=179913) from the nerdiest pitting ever.
---
### Author:  [@Tamerlane](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tamerlane)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/16 "2010-11-24T02:25:34Z")
> [@Shagnasty](#):
>
> This has got to be the nerdiest Pit in the history of the SDMB by far.
Welllll…there have been some [able](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=104400) [competitors](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=128186).
---
### Author:  [@Bryan\_Ekers](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bryan_Ekers)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/17 "2010-11-24T02:30:24Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Post #14 of that thread pretty much confirms that **kanicbird** was going for a “gotcha”.
Yes, and he failed in his typically kanicky way, i.e. saying something stupid in a manner that suggests he thinks it’s brilliant. I don’t know why anyone indulges him.
---
### Author:  [@kanicbird](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kanicbird)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/18 "2010-11-24T13:06:50Z")
My attempt was to ask a question about a pattern similarity noticed between gravity and the effects of 2 ships, also related to to plates and something I think is called negative energy. If anything it was a attempt to think for one self, and not take theories as truths. A thought experiment.
The replies show a strong bias against free thinking, a attempt to shut down those who do not conform to group think.
It’s up to you to decide, do we need encouragement or discouragement of free thinking, in particularly science.
---
### Author:  [@Tully\_Mars](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tully_Mars)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/19 "2010-11-24T13:22:09Z")
> [@kanicbird](#):
>
> It’s up to you to decide, do we need encouragement or discouragement of free thinking, in particularly science.
Okay then. I have decided. Until you learn to think freely and analytically, you should stop posting about, in particularly, science.
I suggest a degree program in engineering or science at an accredited university. That would be a good start.
---
### Author:  [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)
#### Post date: [November 24, 2010, 1:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721/20 "2010-11-24T13:24:59Z")
> [@kanicbird](#):
>
> My attempt was to ask a question about a pattern similarity noticed between gravity and the effects of 2 ships, also related to to plates and something I think is called negative energy. If anything it was a attempt to think for one self, and not take theories as truths. A thought experiment.
>
> The replies show a strong bias against free thinking, a attempt to shut down those who do not conform to group think.
>
> It’s up to you to decide, do we need encouragement or discouragement of free thinking, in particularly science.
Please tell us the definition of “theory” when it comes to science.
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-gravity-pit-for-warping-the-sdmb-and-its-purpose-by-being-a-bumptious-prick/561721.md?page=2)