Re: Evidence for "Big Bang Theory"

Bruce D. Scott (
27 Apr 1995 16:02:35 GMT

Robert Roosen ( wrote:

[I made a logical point about upper and lower limits]

: : That reference merely places a lower "upper bound" on the photon mass than
: : previous experiments did. This is merely a reinforcement to the body of
: : data suggesting that the photon mass is zero within experimental tolerance.

: Zero and infinity are intellectual concepts. Neither has ever been observed.
: "Explaining" anything using zero and infinity is a popular game--also a
: most dangerous one, since the explainers often forget it is a game when
: they get paid for playing.

This is actually a very nice bit of anti-scientific obfuscation. Much more
transparent than others (especially since I never mentioned "infinity").
People can read it and see straightaway how such mindless nonsense comes
about. And don't forget, people are paid to publish it as well.

In fact, "zero" is well defined if you are counting things. If in the
period of time between when you start looking and stop looking you find no
particles, you can honestly say that you found no particles. Are you going
to tell me that I have just intellectualised this and then tell me that in
fact there were particles that I deluded myself into not seeing?

"Zero" in terms of a quantity such as "mass" is experimentally defined in
terms of an upper bound, as I have already posted. This is an inequality,
as in which of two numbers is larger than the other. If you can tell me
how one number can be greater than another, and then also less than that
other, I will simply bask in the afterglow of your brilliance.

Dr Bruce Scott The deadliest bullshit is
Max-Planck-Institut fuer Plasmaphysik odorless and transparent -- W Gibson