There is a vast difference between doing something that is proven to be generally helpful before you know if it is specifically helpful, and making up an idea.
The fact you cannot understand that vast gulf of difference is frankly hilarious.
have you ever heard of this thing called the inverse square law? It applies to a large number of things, and while im not sure about the dissipation of molecules in a gas, im sure there is something very similar. Which would quite literally dictate the level of dispersion, or “average dilution of molecules from a source, from any given arbitrary distance” 6 feet just so happened to be enough that it was small enough to be minorly inconveniencing, and majorly helpful in reducing the significant spread of particles.
Since you seem to know so much about this gas dispersion thing, why don’t you specifically explain to me, what it is that is involved here, and how this number is literally pulled out of someones ass, and how it’s not based on any science. And i will ignore the fact that you don’t seem to understand how science works, or how much of engineering was practiced through the pre-computer age. Nor the fact that you can’t provide anything more than “NUH UH” in response to my questions.
And since im here, why dont you explain to me what might or not work in specific terms. Such that i can have any idea of what the ever living fuck you are talking about.
It wasnt an educated guess it was just around 2 meters and felt good. I am not saying worked or not, but there was no science behind the number.
There is a vast difference between doing something that is proven to be generally helpful before you know if it is specifically helpful, and making up an idea.
The fact you cannot understand that vast gulf of difference is frankly hilarious.
They had no idea if it would work or not and had no reason to believe either way. Do you believe in checking hypothesis?
Do you think they didn’t or don’t continue with the new variants as budgets allow? Your ignorance is made more pathetic by your obstinance.
“no science behind the number.”
i uhm. Are you aware of this thing, a very little, minor thing, called dispersion? Dilution? etc…
Yes, but that number was not related to what might work or not , it was just a number they liked based on no science.
have you ever heard of this thing called the inverse square law? It applies to a large number of things, and while im not sure about the dissipation of molecules in a gas, im sure there is something very similar. Which would quite literally dictate the level of dispersion, or “average dilution of molecules from a source, from any given arbitrary distance” 6 feet just so happened to be enough that it was small enough to be minorly inconveniencing, and majorly helpful in reducing the significant spread of particles.
Since you seem to know so much about this gas dispersion thing, why don’t you specifically explain to me, what it is that is involved here, and how this number is literally pulled out of someones ass, and how it’s not based on any science. And i will ignore the fact that you don’t seem to understand how science works, or how much of engineering was practiced through the pre-computer age. Nor the fact that you can’t provide anything more than “NUH UH” in response to my questions.
And since im here, why dont you explain to me what might or not work in specific terms. Such that i can have any idea of what the ever living fuck you are talking about.