Strange

I think it is because there are multiple thing going on, some of which can increase (some?) LDLs and some can increase it ...

Thank you! But it looks like LDL is more complicated because it also says

Looks like it. Apparently, infection and inflammation cause a reduction in HDL and LDL levels (eg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK326741/)

Note that there are also DC motors and DC generators: https://www.electricaleasy.com/2012/12/basic-construction-and-working-of-dc.html AC is used for motors in the house and factory because there is an AC supply. The motors in automobiles, for example, are DC motors. (I think it is easier to control torque and speed precisely with DC motors - but that may just be because I have only seen controllers for DC motors when working in automotive.)

They make terrible entrepreneurs and managers because they can't understand that there is a lot of practical work required to realise their vision. They make terrible team members because they can't understand that there is a lot of practical work required to get the project done. (I used to work with a guy who was great at the "big picture" new product ideas; but half way through every project he would just wander off, leaving others in the lurch, because he had had another "big idea.") They make terrible freelancers because they can't be trusted to delver on time, because they never remember how much work is involved to complete a job. Or they just leave things half-done. But apart from that ...

That's OK. I suspect many people do think of their god as a person just like them, for the reason you gave and because we always anthropomorphise things.

I have nothing to say about that. If Itoero had used that argument, I would have had nothing to say. I was simply pointing out that his "A therefore B" argument was not logically coherent. (But pointing that out was probably redundant as it was, after all, a post by Itoero.)

Even if people believe in a "personal creator" that does not necessarily mean they think of them as having human form. So you leap from "creator" to "human-like figure" is irrational. Despite the many Christian illustrations of God in a human form, that is not the "official", and may not even be the most popular, conceptualisation. And, of course, Islam forbids depictions of Allah for exactly this reason. Also, you may have heard the line "God moves in mysterious ways". That is specifically because God is not "human-like" in form or behaviour.

That is not logical. One could believe in a creator that was like an invisible pink hyper-dimensional turtle with wings.

What are you looking for: Criticisms of your science-fiction artwork? Or the top 10 reasons why this idea won't work?

Citation needed.

So what you need to do is create a model based on that idea and show that it works better than the existing model.

Well this might explain a lot.

Why do you think the universe is perfect? And why do you think it could have come about by “random actions” ? (And actions by whom?) Please show your working (as they used to say at school) It isn’t. As long as you have evidence for that pattern. We don’t know anything of the sort.

It wasn’t clear to me that the entire contents of your post was copied/quoted from elsewhere (which is itself a problem) so the “source” was just another link. I can only assume you have got away with this behaviour elsewhere because this is the first science forum you have joined. Did you? Apart from youtube there was one link that didn’t work and another to an article of unknown provenance. Also neither the text you copied nor that article appear to support your claim in the title (or was that copied from someone else as well?)

You still haven’t defined what “now” or “at the same time” means. Which is why the question is so vague. The only interpretation I can come up with is that we must both exist at the same time because we are having this conversation. But if it goes on long enough, only one of us will exist and then we won’t both exist at the same time.

If you can only talk about vague concepts instead of well-defined mathematics, then that is the communication problem

If we are in relative motion then the rate at which our clocks tick is related by the Lorentz transform. Relativity doesn’t say anything about “now”. So I don’t know how to answer your question.

Whose clock?

How do you define "now"? Did you look up coordinate and proper time?

Disregarding time zone differences, that isn't true. Otherwise we wouldn't be communicating. (Although it is not clear we are communicating! ) Note that there isn't anyone from 1728 or 2019 joining in because they really do exist at a different time. Or ... I still don't understand what you mean by "different times". Didn't understand a word, I'm afraid. For example "relativity of simultaneity is absolute"; how can relativity be absolute? And it isn't absolute, it is relative; each observer may perceive it differently. I wish someone else would try and understand ... (others often see through to meanings I can't) But, ultimately, the trouble is, you are comparing relativity(*) which is a detailed mathematical model that makes testable (and tested) predictions with a vague concept you have in your head which is not testable in any way. (*) or your slightly confused idea of what it is

All true and good points. On the other hand, it has pointers (which are useful for low-level programming but a horrible trap for learners) And the object model is just a mess and unnecessarily complicated.

I'm not sure I would recommend any start with this. Apart from anything else, there is the hurdle of finding and installing the necessary tools. And it is not a great "beginners language", IMO. But it is the default programming language that pretty much everyone needs to have some familiarity with. (So I am still giving you a +1 for the suggestion!) An excellent resource, I agree.

I think its very simplicity is what makes it appealing to many people (rather like popular science representations of complex scientific ideas). I guess the devil may be in the detail, but those descriptions sound very similar, or at least, compatible. And they seem to fit with the fact that we know that so much of what appears "real" to us is just a series of illusions created by the brain. I suspect our sense of self is a similar illusion.

Exactly. My intuition was that doing this with smoke would form a larger vortex than doing the same thing with (coloured) water. It seems I am wrong (which is always good to learn!) The basic fluid dynamics (turbulent flow, etc) that create the vortex will be the same in all fluids.