swansont

Where is the analysis that combines all of this?

That's religion, not science.

The meridian line means it's a transit measurement. So, basically as I had guessed. Interesting find!

Yes. Why would you want to?

How do you come to that conclusion? The air force's report is a video?

Well, then, propose a measurement to give us a value, dictated by nature, and without any arbitrary human units. Seems to me this should already be part of any proposal. Sure it would. Just because you've passed a test doesn't mean it wasn't a test. Getting a head of yourself is when you claim you will be a world champion marathon runner when you haven't ever run (much less won) a 5 km race. I don't know what V bar and gamma are, and if it's so straightforward, let's see the solution. You're the expert here, and this is your proposal. Show us how it's done. Show us something, anything, where we can compare your results to known QM results.

You've got perhaps a dozen variables (which you have not described in any detail). "Streamlined" is not the word that comes to mind. How so? What are "fundamental" measurements of time and length? You are getting waaaay ahead of yourself. How about passing the introductory tests first.

The distance of merit in that article is ~100 nm.

Not the problem described in the paper, which derives from in-room circulation. The air flow from the ventilation system assisted in getting the droplets to travel from table to table, before they would have had a chance to be filtered. We had a high-level person who insisted on stepping over the mats whenever he entered our lab. Grrr. (A tad like Pence not wearing a mask at the Mayo clinic) Anyway, I took to calling it admiral-paper. (And our visitors were referred to as sneetches, from the Dr. Seuss story)

I think even Iowa has cities.

And you still apparently haven’t read the rules you agreed to follow. Gravity and QM being so tightly coupled... Why and how would gravity - something typically ignored in QM calculations - yield a QM parameter’s value? Why not use electrodynamics? What section?

Found this https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/26/7/20-0764_article#tnF1 Strong airflow is alleged to be the culprit, since droplets travel further. Filtration doesn’t fix that. Some basis for the discussion, other than conjecture, is needed.

How do we test your idea to see if it has merit? Hydrogen is pretty basic. How about a generic particle in a 1-D well? Do you have some other system to suggest?

What is n, and why don’t you know it if you have a proton and electron interacting electromagnetically? Being able to do straightforward tasks is a simple first cut for proposals of alternative models

Not my burden of proof. But the scenario offered - nursing homes - has caretakers in close contact with multiple people on a daily basis. Has that been eliminated from being the prime suspect?

Clearly? What evidence is there to support this? What information do you have on air filtration removal of the virus? Can you reconcile your need for a high flow rate with this filtration/exposure plan?

Can you calculate (and show) the solution to, and the energy states of, Hydrogen?

Outside of my area of expertise, but unless the tissue is coated with whatever you’re trying to kill, I’d guess “no”

Inside the lungs even surface-level effects will be damaging. Radiation that only penetrates the top level of cells has been tested (this came up here or in a related thread) - it's in the deep UV. In one sense it's like alpha radiation. Externally not a problem because it's attenuated by the top layer of cells, but very damaging if ingested/inhaled. You would, in effect, be getting a sunburn inside your lungs.

What have the countries which have had the most success done?

Yeah, about Sweden... "Sweden: 22 Scientists Say Coronavirus Strategy Has Failed As Deaths Top 1,000" https://www.forbes.com/sites/davidnikel/2020/04/14/sweden-22-scientists-say-coronavirus-strategy-has-failed-as-deaths-top-1000/#1f42483e7b6c

It's kinda like the Stockholm syndrome in that regard. I didn't recall the name, either. I was double-checking which bias it was (wasn't sure if it fell under confirmation bias) and it popped up.

Then it's not a good example for the situation of a place that hasn't been able to get ahead of the spread of the virus (not that Sweden is doing great), and one should note that they are saying they are still a month away from herd immunity - in the capital. We don't know if/how well their strategy is going to work. As a counterexample, one can look at Singapore. Or look at the 1918-19 flu pandemic. The "second wave" was worse than the initial wave.

Not very long, then. The fine-structure discrepancy was measured by the same group (and therefore the same methodology), but with different instrumentation (since they looked in a very different direction, IIRC they had to use different telescopes). Each leaves open the possibility of a bias. Ideally you want independent confirmation of a measurement, and more so in a case like this.

It's called the Baader-Meinhof phenomenon (frequency bias). Coupled with confirmation bias.