Strange

! Moderator Note Similar nonsense merged. And moved to Speculations.

A single virus particles is called a virion. Yes, the number of virions you are exposed to (the "viral load") affects the risk, and possibly the severity, of infection. But I'll leave someone more knowledgable to answer those questions.

Finding traces of RNA from the virus, does not mean there are active virions present. It is quite normal for cells to shed viral RNA fragments (even for months after recovery). They do say that at the very end of the article:

I wonder if that relates to Gullstrand-Painlevé coordinates This is another of your "cryptic question, when it might be better to say what you mean" posts, isn't it.

Well, as I say, if you take a conclusion of GR as your starting point, it is not surprising that you might be able to derive another related result from GR. (You haven't actually done that, though.) IF it did, you would become incredibly famous. Maybe even get a Nobel Prize. (Spoiler: it doesn't.) I just had another look: you haven't even shown you can derive Newtonian gravity, never mind the non-linear effects of GR. Come on, then. Let's see you derive [math] F = G\frac{m_1 m_2}{r^2} [/math] from (the only math in your "paper").

Because you haven't shown that it does. And it seems impossible for a simplistic model like yours to reproduce all the complexity of the Einstein field equations. I think someone would have noticed in the last 100 years if it could be simplified like that. But of course, even if your model does reproduce some limited results from GR, it is only because you have based it on GR. I would love it if you did that. Which is why I asked about it.

Personal preference has nothing to do with it. Unless you can reproduce all the results of GR (or improve on it) it is irrelevant what approach you take or what you like. That is just a preference about an interpretation. It has nothing to do with the underlying science, which is the same for all interpretations of QM. You can dismiss all the interpretations. It doesn't matter. But you are not claiming a different interpretation of GR (if that is even possible). You are presenting a different model (based on a result of GR) which does not appear to produce the same results.

What analogy? If you cannot reproduce all the results of GR, then your model is wrong. Which would be especially ironic as you are basing it on GR. Irrelevant. It works. No one disagrees with that.

We already have an explanation for that. And you are using it already, by basing things on time dilation. It is based on rather dubious science (this "EM mass" concept seems to have been invented by some engineers and, despite [or perhaps because of] being an engineer, I have seen some very dubious "physics" produced by engineers.). Does it reproduce all the effects of GR? Can you correctly calculate the precession of Mercury? The Lense-Thirring effect?

Not really. I haven't looked at it in detail, but it is not very surprising if you can derive gravity from time dilation as they both have the same underlying cause. It's a bit like saying "if you tell me how fast we are going, I can tell you when we will arrive". I struggle to see the relevance of this speculative "EM mass" concept. Mass is mass. And we have a "causal mechanism for gravity" so I'm not sure what is new, as you are invoking the same cause.

Relative. Just because the situation is asymmetrical, it is still relative.

I think when you get to the point of imagining a model without time, or worse without space, then it becomes hard to give realistic answers. However, mass is not defined in terms of time or length. It is an independent quantity unlike, for example, force which is defined in terms of mass, length and time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dimensional_analysis What does "values in the higgs field" mean? The Higgs mechanism is responsible for the mass of particles, including those bosons that have mass. Well, their position can be defined. In as much as the position of any quantum particle can be defined; i.e. when it s measured. Yes. Models of spacetime with no mass are useful for understanding GR. Probably. One definition of mass is "the curvature it causes in spacetime". If you change that then perhaps you are changing the meaning or effect of mass. But, again, once you start departing from the physics we know then any answers are just guesses. I would say the existence of space is a requirement for anything to exist. Momentum. Energy. Color (in the case of gluons). Interestingly, there are no massless particles with charge. I don't know if there is an explanation for that. Yes. So do massless ones because they have energy. (Mass does not appear in the equations for gravity; only energy.) Gravity does not curve spacetime, energy does. Gravity is just how we perceive the curvature.

What's wrong with "relative"? Time dilation due to relative speed is not illusory either. So I'm not sure what distinction you are trying to make.

That is not what "absolute" means.

It is relative in that it depends on the relative difference in gravitational potential.

So why did you say “they are saying now that antibody protection is lasting”. You seem to be contradicting yourself. And no one is saying that (because we don’t know yet).

An observation, in quantum theory, is just an interaction. Photons interact ("observe") and are massless. Yes. A photon could interact with something. Yes and yes. That doesn't really make sense that way round. All massless things travel at the same speed for all (massive) observers, whatever the speed of the observer. Therefore there is no speed that is "relative to the speed of light". No. Needing space is a characteristic of fermions (which all have mass). Bosons can all occupy the same space (they can overlap or pass through one another). And there are bosons with mass. But all massless things are (I think) bosons, and so no't need space. (Assuming that is what you mean by "need space"; or maybe they just need to get away from it all for a while!) I think entropy only applies to systems, which probably always have mass. But I'm not going to attempt to answer this! It is often said that photons, for example, don't experience time because as you get closer and closer to the speed of light, time dilation increases and it would seem logical to say that it becomes infinite for photons (ie. that no time passes for them). But, mathematically, that is wrong because there is no valid frame of reference for something travelling at the speed of light. If you try and do the related math you end up dividing by zero. And what does it mean for a photon to "experience time" anyway? They are unchanging so it makes no difference. I would say that a universe requires spacetime because without that it would be zero-size and exist for zero time; in other words it wouldn't exist. But, using the math of GR, you can define a universe with no mass or energy in it; just spacetime. These "vacuum solutions" to the Einstein Field Equations are useful for exploring aspects of the theory. Wavelength and frequency are not independent, so they would only be one dimension (if you can count them as that, which you may be able to). Interesting question... And that's another good reason why a photon does not have a valid frame of reference: two photons moving in the same direction should be in the same frame of reference, because they are both moving at c. But every observer must see a photon moving at c so both photons would see the other one moving at c and so they cannot be in the same frame of reference. The contradiction arises from trying to consider the speed of light as a valid frame of reference.

A study in the UK shows about 0.27% were infected: https://www.bbc.com/news/health-52662066

I don't know what you are on about. That DNA robot is just a lab experiment, not practical technology. For example, it says: "To test it, Qian created a flat 58-by-58-nanometre surface ... but a single step between stones takes a rather lengthy 5 minutes, meaning that covering the entire surface takes a whole day." It will take many years before anything practical could be developed from that. But even then, what would you use it for? The problem with treating Covid-19 is not a lack of nano-robots, it is a lack of a vaccine.

There have been a few studies looking at random groups of people (not fully randomised, but now people who were thought to have Covid-19). The results have been rather variable but seem to be around 5% of the people were infected. Now there seem to be some reliable antibody tests, we might get some more accurate information from mass testing. I haven't seen that. Do you have a link? It is a lab experiment, not a practical tool.

You might catch it again, and have more serious consequences. Or you might catch a future novel disease. Not sure how that is going to help. But do try and ensure you don't spread the disease to anyone else just because you think you can't catch it again. Because it is not a subject I know anything about. I did a quick search and saw a lot of research into SARS vaccines that seem to work. So I will wait to see what someone more knowledgable says. Even if we haven't had a vaccine for an RA virus before, doesn't mean it is not possible. It could just be that it hasn't been important enough until now. I don't know.

Anecdotes are not sensible data to make personal or public health decisions on. However, it does seem that many, possibly most, people have mild or no symptoms. This has frequently been in the media, including TV. However, a significant proportion suffer sever consequences and many of those die. So it is silly to try and dismiss it. But yes, Star Trek is not real. 🙂

It seems pretty uncertain at the moment. Somewhere between 0 and 100% For example: https://www.cebm.net/covid-19/covid-19-what-proportion-are-asymptomatic/ https://www.bmj.com/content/369/bmj.m1375 https://www.newsroom.co.nz/2020/05/09/1161521/22-of-new-zealand-covid-19-cases-asymptomatic http://med.stanford.edu/content/dam/sm/id/documents/COVID/AsymptCOVID_TransmissionShip.pdf

I'm not convinced that moving the air around more is a good plan. Is there any evidence for this? Personal protection may be more appropriate and is known to work.

Not all diseases are transmitted through the air