The first thing about good science is that you need to have some sort of mechanism to explain your findings. That's what's called a theory.

You utterly misunderstand the scientific method. Experiment and observation are primary. Based on those, hypotheses and later theories can be elaborated in an iterative cycle of experimentation and theory development. But you do not need a theory to perform science: how else but by starting with only initial observations and experiments can you enter a new field of scientific exploration?

Theories can be helpful in interpreting experiments. But it should always be kept in mind that those interpretations are only as good as the theories. And theories are only approximate models of reality: there is always the possibility for them to be erroneous or be improved. If a subsequent observation or experiment falsifies the theory, then both the theory and the interpretations based on it are discarded if the scientific method is followed faithfully. In short, experiment and observation are primary and valuable in and of themselves.

Some further references for your benefit:

[Ader, 1997] Adey WR (1997): Bioeffects of communication fields; possible mechanisms of cumulative dose. In: Kuster N, Balzano Q, Lin eds., Mobile Communication Safety, New York, Chapman and Hall. pp. 103-139

[Edelsryn and Oldenshaw, 2002]: The acute effects of exposure to electromagnetic field emitted by mobile phones on human attention. Neuroreport 13:119-121

[Huber et al., 2002] I Huber R, Troyer V, Borbely A, et al. (2002): Electromagnetic fields, such as those from mobile phones, alter regional cerebral blood flow and sleep and waking EEG. J Sleep Res 11:280-295

[Krause et al., 2000] Krause CM, Sillanmaki L, Koivisto M, et al. (2000): Effects of electromagnetic fields emitted by cellular phones on the electroencephalogram during a visual working memory task. Intermit" Radiat Biol 76: 1659-1667

[Kuster et al., 1997] Kuster N, Balzano Q, Lin J, eds (1997): Mobile Communication Safety. New York, Chapman and Hall. 279 pp

[Oscar and Hawkins, 19771 Oscar KJ, Hawkins TD (1977): Microwave alteration of the blood-brain barrier system of rats. Brain Res 126:281-293

[Preece et al., 1999] Preece AW, Iwi G, Davies-Smith A, et al. (1999): Effects of 915-MHz simulated mobile phone signal on cognitive function in man. Internat J Rad Biot 75:447-456

[Salford et al., 2003] Salford L, Brun A, Eberhardt J, et al. (2003) Nerve cell damage in mammalian brain after exposure to microwaves from GSM mobile phones. Environmental health Perspectives 2003

[Sandstrom et al., 2001] Sandstrom M, Wilen J, Oftedal G, et al. (2001): Mobile phone use and subjective symptoms. Occup Med (Lond) 51:25-35

[ Schirmacher et al., 2000] Schirmacher A, Winters S, Fischer S, et al. (2000): Electromagnetic fields (1.8 GHz) increase the permeability to sucrose of the blood-brain barrier in vitro. Bioelectromagnetics 21:338-345

[Wilen et al., 2000] Wilen J, Sandstrom M, Hansson Mild K (2003): Subjective symptoms among mobile telephone users — a consequence of absorption of radiofrequency fields? Bioelectromagnetics 24:152-159

Sure, you have to weigh risks and benefits. But in order to do so, you need to know about and quantify risk. Those that have researched the mobile phone radiation risk often choose to use a hands-free kit to keep the antenna away from their head instead of foregoing the benefits of accessible communication altogether. In Russia, where the risks are acknowledged, much lower norms have been mandated for the emission levels of cellular base stations. There is plenty that can be done short of a ban.

A small side note: prions are not carcinogenic. They are supposed to induce a chain reaction of further prion formation. But the scientific evidence for that is not nearly as clear-cut as it is for the harmful effects of microwave and radio frequency EM fields. It is interesting how one bit of weakly supported science gets turned into a big media scare, while the harmful effects of EM fields get brushed under the carpet.

Oh gosh and golly, I so happened to cite one of those industry-funded hit pieces that is supposed to "prove" there is not effect. But hey just because there was no associated rise in the core body temperature of the rats does not mean there is no harm. Aside from direct one-photon absorption there are plenty of conceivable secondary mechanisms through which non-ionizing EM fields can induce physiological effects that are mutagenic (cause DNA breaks).

Let me give an example. Biochemical processes give rise to free-radical pair production. When the now unpaired electon spins on both radical molecules are induced to reorient, for which EM fields can lend a helping hand, recombination and neutralization of these free radicals is inhibited.

In fact, evidence has been found for an indirect mechanism. The degree of the observed DNA breaks as directly determined via comet assays was highly suppressed when the rats had their iron chelated. Iron, being a somewhat heavier element than most present in mammals, has a high spin-orbit coupling and as such is indeed a plausible intermediary in the up conversion of low-energy photons to high-energy effects.

In any case, there is plenty of other scientific evidence that RF and MW fields can cause harm. 70% of the non-industry funded studies find ill effect as you could have read in the earlier-given link you so conveniently ignored: http://www.seattlemag.com/article/nerd-report/nerd-report

There is plenty of evidence for mutagenic and other negative effects of radio-frequency and microwave fields. Just a small sample: http://www.rrjournal.org/doi/abs/10.2307/3579911 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6T2D-4G7NFGG-1&_user=10&_coverDate=06%2F06%2F2005&_rdoc=1&_fmt=high&_orig=browse&_origin=browse&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=f82e85c25e8d4446ef498e2a2d93c83c http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8627134

So why is this not widely known? Because people tend to not look beyond the headline spin, the parent post being a good example thereof. But also because industry-funded studies tend to generate biased results http://www.seattlemag.com/article/nerd-report/nerd-report which are then touted as "proof" that there is no ill effect.

You assume that the knowledge that was public at the time matches what was known by the oil cartel which came into being rather earlier back in the times of Standard Oil. What the public thinks it knows about anything important is mostly lucrative and convenient lies foisted on them. For example, the public does not even know what oil is. Let me give you a hint: it is also being pumped up from extremely deep wells.

Ah, you have half a clue. Vast amounts of tar sands indeed. Vast amounts of oil all over the place, actually. Brazil, Cuba, Prudhoe Bay, and so on and on and on. If the public would know just how vast, they would revolt and not be prepared to pay the current excessive energy prices. That is why this Peak-oil nonsense is being sold to you time-and-again in bullshit articles such as the one above.

Reality check: land-based oil close to the surface carries a production cost of only a couple of dollars. Of that kind of oil, there are still vast supplies. In Iraq for example. That is why that country has been kept in a perpetual state of being messed up for a century now. It is even why it was created into being by drawing the borders as they were drawn by the western powers that be, with 1/3 Kurdish, 1/3 Shia, and 1/3 Sunni territory to ensure continual political instability. Guess what happened after the Iraqi's even so got their act together and elected a democratic government...

It is basic economics: the price point is determined by supply and demand. Artificial scarcity is a much better way to up the price up than trying to work on the demand side. This scam is being pulled not just with oil, but also with diamonds , land, foodstuffs, water, and so on. Think of it like hidden taxes levied by the criminals that rule you.

What if this physical reality is not as absolute as it mostly appears? What if the perception-warping effects of psychedelic drugs show that fundamentally this reality is subjective and flexible? What if it is really an adaptive stage, a credible illusion, in which we play out the role called "life"?

If true, that would certainly explain why we are so easily addicted to and feel at home in RPGs as we would be born role players.

With NVidia unable to release something competitive and therefore creating a "new" 3xx series into being through renaming 2xx series cards, the gts360m as well, those with a clue will be buying ATI for the time being.

Sadly, the average consumer will only look at higher number and is likely to be conned.

Ah yes, another attempt to sell the big lie that CO2-induced global warming is causing sea levels to rise.

I guess I should have said "if there's any good science".

That the article has caused controversy, made an editor resign, and had to be published in a non-mainstream journal in order not to be censored is predictable given its politically contentious implications. But that does not make it bad science.

Why do you not address its contents? What specifically about the experiments or methods is bad science? Oh, that's right, nothing: it presents clear-cut evidence of the presence of thermitic material in the WTC dust. The implications are obvious.

I've spent a lot of time at the various WTC conspiracy Web site and if there's any real science...

There is. Plenty of it. For example linked in the very post you were responding to. Here is that link again http://www.bentham-open.org/pages/content.php?TOCPJ/2009/00000002/00000001/7TOCPJ.SGM.

Why? The Fermi-Dirac statistics hold up in dramatically inertial systems and have been reproduced in microgravity as well.

One can indeed derive very general results based on the underlying symmetry of particles. This says little about the general applicability of the aspects of quantum theory not based on symmetry argumentation: it is possible to conceive competing theories that encompass the same symmetries. Quantum theory may fall prey to falsification (once that is actually allowed), group theory is not going away.

It is actually kinda surprising that GR and QM have the accuracies they do.

Not really, given that experimental results at odds with the predictions of both theories are being censored away.

You are correct that we do not have an independent test for non-local physics of ANY sort, however we also lack any independent test for non-local intelligence so in effect arguing that local physics is only valid locally directly corresponds with solipsism.

I was not trying to argue precisely that. Instead, I was trying to indicate that applying a theory in a domain that is very different from the domain where the theory has been matched to nature is highly unlikely to yield truthful predictions. The reason for that is that physical theories are approximate descriptions of nature. As the experimental domain in which a theory is verified is extended, and supposing it does not get falsified in the mean time, this approximate description is elaborated and refined.

Take quantum theory. Early on, it was a description of electronic energy levels in atoms. Then the electron-spin was discovered, experimentally. This caused the theory to be elaborated with an additional spin term for the wavefunction. The underlying particle model (the electron postulated to be a point particle) was not changed (which is rather silly because a point cannot rotate). Instead the spin was declared to be "intrinsic". In short, quantum theory is a dubious patchwork that sort of works in the domain where it has been matched to experiment because it has been modified to accord with experiment. Applying such a theory to a wholly different domain (the dynamics of the universe as a whole instead of the dynamics of a tiny speck of matter) and expecting it to produce accurate predictions is silly.

The verification of advanced physical theories is not cheap.

High-energy physics and cutting-edge astrophysical observations definitely are not cheap. However that is intrinsic to the experimental tools used in those pursuits. Many relatively cheap table-top experiments have been done to check advanced physical theories. Take, for example, experiments in the field of quantum optics.

Why are there so many high-redshift objects in the background that do not seem to be ejecting yet higher-redshifted objects?

Because there is a distance->redshift relationship as well. Why? Maybe the universe is really expanding. Maybe one of the "tired light" hypotheses matches reality.

Why are there no high-blueshift objects in the foreground being ejected on opposite vectors or with different mass-energy states?

That would be expected if whatever is causing these non-distance-related shifts is the Doppler effect. As I argued before, that is highly unlikely because the shifts are all to the red. Moreover, as the angular distance between the "parent galaxy" and the redshifted object increases, the redshift tends to decrease: it seems that the redshift decreases as the object ages.

Obviously, some new physics is required to model this aspect of nature as the current theoretical framework in no way allows for such redshifts and galaxy spawning dynamics. It also implies that the current theoretical framework is woefully incomplete to an extent that I consider tantamount to falsification.

In any case, to really understand why the collection of epicycles that is modern cosmology is being kept alive and patched up, instead of revised from the ground up, you have to look at what is important. Cosmology as such is not important on a human scale. However, cosmology is founded on physics, and physics is very important to everyday human endeavors. The BB model is the poster-child application of GR: it is in defense of GR that the BB cosmology is being kept alive. If one of the many falsifications of GR is ever going to be acknowledged instead of censored, the BB model will finally go where it belongs: in the trashcan together with GR. And then we will finally be able to have some proper physics instead of the current farce.