David,

I’ve had a little time to return to your earlier point about evaluating hypotheses and grandness of vision.

You wrote: “If we are to be able to unify that which is described by our, arguably, two greatest theories (General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics); or if we are to ever hope to create methods of traveling (effectively) faster than the speed of light (or, in other words, if we are to ever hope to visit any of the wondrous places in our vast universe, outside out very restricted, parochial experience in and near this rock upon which we reside), then we need thinkers that can handle a far greater range of circumstances than what we have locally.... Unfortunately, Jim, you are showing yourself to be insufficient to the task. Your "real world" is far too restricted. (I, and others, have no problem explaining all that lies within your "real world". So I most certainly don't mean that your "real world" is too "restrictive". The difference is I, and others, have a viewpoint [or viewpoints], and theories, that can extend far beyond your "real world" to encompass much more that is possible, to say nothing of that which has been, and will yet be observed within our universe.)”

Regarding the unification of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, if gravity is recognized as nothing more than a property of mass, rather than a force, there’s no need for unification, the task of QM becomes much simpler, and therefore more promising.

You believe you and others “have no problem explaining all that lies within [my] ‘real world’”, yet you haven’t explained how -- if in controlled, local experiments, gravity (the noun) is nothing more than a geometric distortion of spacetime, and gravitation (the verb) is nothing more than geodesic motion in a gravitational field -- larger-scale or hypothetical gravitational phenomena become (presto) manifestations of force and energy.

Your aspirations are commendable, but sometimes one has to choose between aspiration and devotion. Am I limiting myself by insisting on building upon elementary empirical principles, or are you restraining yourself by your devotion to a flawed paradigm that could only spin fictional hypotheses? That seems to be the ultimate question between us.