A Tripolation

It really isn't. This is the core of what I'm speaking of. There are no empirical differences between the varying interpretations of QM. Bohmian mechanics, wave mechanics, the space-time approach, these are all the same thing with different mathematical formalisations. The ONLY difference is which metaphysical claims you find to be distasteful about each. It is aesthetics about metaphysics. I, personally, do not like infinitely many worlds. Therefore, I do not hold to the MWI. That isn't science. That's subjective taste. But I'm just as right as someone who favors nonlocal theories. Until you show me a way to empirically separate them, the choice boils down to (useless) philosophy.

Slow clap for the Doctor. But you are wrong. I never said you could choose a theory based on aesthetics. I said you could choose an INTERPRETATION of a theory (qm) based on aesthetics. Right now, there is no empirical way to choose an interpretation of QM. So, it comes down to aesthetics, or metaphysics, on which one you like. DH stated this a few posts ago. I take it you no longer believe that nonlocal and local versions of QM are empirically differentiable?

There are no ways to tell if our universe behaves locally or nonlocally. The interpretations of quantum vary from deterministic to indeterministic, but they all predict the same things and there is no way to tell them apart using empiricism. It comes down to your own personal aesthetics. So, basically, it comes down to some metaphysics. And guess what? There is no way to know if you are right since you can't construct an experiment, leading me back to my main question -- if the philosophy isn't being used in a way that the scientific method uses philosophy (epistemology, mathematics, logic, etc), is it useful, or is it crap? To me, it seems like a circlejerk that's been going on for centuries with no end in sight. If you have an experiment, or know of one, that is being constructed to test the locality parameters of our universe, please link it to me. edit: The copenhagen interpretation is cursed with an infinitely fast waveform collapse. To some, this is more unappealing than infinitely many universes. While the CI is more economic, the MWI doesn't have infinitely fast communication mechanisms.

This is not true at all. There are no frames in which a photon is at rest. Please do not be misleading and post errant information as fact.

Surely there's some venue of protest available to those of us who do not wish to see a despot rise to power.

Graphene is baryonic matter that only needed some clever experimenting to create. Warp drives require a source of negative energy density that has not been observed in nature, nor created in labs. It's not fair to compare the two. Warp drives probably won't be around for a very long time, if ever.

Out of curiosity, has anything like that experiment been replicated in modern times with our much more sensitive equipment and computers?

Which is a damn good show. Great job, OP!

What proof do you have for this? Bold claim. What proof do you have of this? As a fellow theist, you're really not making us look good by calling everyone liars and saying that we have proof that we do not. It's called faith for a reason.

And how do you propose this happens when photons have no mass to be affected by gravity (they only have momentum)? Magic? Gravity and curved spacetime are not two competing ideas. Gravity IS the effect of spacetime that is distorted by some stuff that is given by the stress-energy tensor. Newton's "simple" version of gravity had no explanation or mechanism. Which is bad. It's hard for me to tell you that it's not gravity affecting the EMR when it's gravity affecting the EMR. Gravity caused by the curvature of that locality. I do not understand why this is a difficult leap for you. Like has been suggested previously, you really ought to buy this book.

Reality doesn't particularly care what you believe in. Your issue seems to be with the fact that since photons are massless, they shouldn't be affected by gravity. A common source of confusion for laypeople, but I'm surprised someone with a chemistry degree is puzzled by this. Photons aren't directly influenced by the gravitational field of an object, but they are still confined to the geodesics of the spacetime through which they travel. The light traveling around objects is bent due to the curvature of that particular area. The empirical data for this phenomena is astounding and voluminous. We know it's true from gravitational lensing of celestial bodies, and tests performed within our own solar system (radio waves traversing near the sun took longer than they should have to come back). Continuing to "not believe" in one of the primary ramifications of general relativity doesn't lend much credence to you.

Yes, it is. Thank you. Though I give credit to this forum because most members here have made explicit exceptions for farmers/ranchers that need to protect their livestock. This is why the argument to ban guns outright is stupid, but the discussion on assault weapons merits looking at.

...we WANT to kill the coyotes. We want them dead.

That's quite possibly one of the worst suggestions I've ever heard in my life.

Gun regulation should be increased. But there should be no ban on guns aside from idiotic hardware like Apaches or Stinger missiles. Things of that sort. I see no legitimate reason for a civilian to own an assault rifle, but I support their right to do so. To me, one of the biggest, and more far-fetched, benefits of the 2nd amendment is the ability for citizens to combat the rise of a police state. It would be much harder to subdue a civilian population that had a lot of guns than one where almost no one has a gun, nor have any experience using a firearm. Good point.

Yeah! The guns we have on our farm are for target practice and entertainment. Any time we see a dangerous, wild animal that might hurt our livestock, we call the cops and let them handle it. Sometimes they only kill one animal before the cops get there! It truly is a great system.

No, see, we outlaw guns and force people to give them up. That will stop people intent on killing others with a gun and might force them to reconsider. Because a guy who was contemplating murdering people will be paralyzed at the thought of seeking guns on some sort of illegal market. Use your brains, man. No, see, clearly guns are only meant to commit mass murders. Just look at the news which isn't sensationalized at all. A year ago, we had a problem with a pack of coyotes that was actively killing our calves. Well, we went to court and got a restraining order. That didn't work, so we called the cops when we saw them attacking again. The cops got there in about 10 minutes and only two calves were dead and they tased them and settled everything.

...what's the new content page? I like the color scheme. And spell it properly. You live in America, by God.

I thought it was ugly at first. Now I think it's more sleek and elegant. I approve.

I believe in God. I do not think I am broken in any sense of the word. I didn't think it on the first or second page and I do not think that now. Therefore, your statement cannot possibly be true.

Give up now. You clearly know nothing about farming if you think you want overly clean soil and water. Plants thrive on that "pollution" stuff like potassium and nitrate. Also good to see that no one here is really supporting organic crops as a superior alternative to conventional farming.

By people who don't even understand the wave mechanics of self-propagating EM radiation? How could they possibly have anything to contribute?

I, for one, do not want someone who doesn't understand general relativity trying to tell me what gravity is. I get enough of that crap from philosophers who like to idly muse about what gravity is.

I, for one, do not want someone who doesn't understand relativity trying to tell me what time is. I get enough of that crap from philosophers who like to idly muse about what time is.

Example? Where someone who doesn't understand anything beyond high school math would be able to contribute?