Bender

No, I'm not really into quotes. But please enlighten me That's probably it, and I might be overreacting. I would have preferred if both sides of the argument would be presented.

Who doesn't like them . But those are just funny and generally don't have deeper ideological implications. The paragraph I mentioned in the OP was also in the actual text.

As far as we know, it isn't.

Same in Dutch, but we have -loos as suffix, while "less" translate to "minder" which doesn't cause any confusion. Being used to this kind of suffix, I never even noticed this confusion when learning English. The horrible spelling is much, much worse in my opinion.

Quite an unrealistic premise. Except for the test-tube babies, it sounds like how Heaven is sometimes depicted... Anyway, you could still play cooperative games, so roleplaying games like Dungeons and Dragons would be allowed. I could certainly fill my time there. I disagree with the conclusion that everyone would need to study science and mathematics. That does not follow from the premise.

Of course he does. I'm not arguing the legality. I'm arguing whether it is ok to put something like that in an otherwise "opinionless" educational physics book.

Thank you for making my point. I prefer not to have those. If people would have less hate, Trump would never have been elected. Not all dictators necessarily use hate though. Not all of them rely on voters to hate a specific demographic to get elected. Not all of them cause deliberate harm to (part of) their population, and even those that do might not hate those they harm. It is sufficient to be indifferent.

But you said "anything which has an intent of torture or pain is said to be evil", which clearly contains the word "intent". I'm confused now. Are you implying that accidentally stepping on a bug is evil? After all, "intent is irrelevant" and "(intent of) pain is evil". I agree that when an animal dies, it does not care for what reason. In fact, it does not care at all. Not all caged animals experience torture. Animals have even been known to return to their cage after accidentally escaping or being set free. one of many examples:

No, we sum the force on each length of the wire, and B is different over each length of the wire. In the given setup, it would be quite complex to calculate B.

Ok, now that we have a definition of awareness, the toaster no longer applies (although the definition is still vague enough to squeeze it in if I really wanted, since you didn't define when something is "aware of itself" ). My computer still has awareness, though. I finally looked up pzombies. I don't see what makes them different from humans (either that or they are logically contradictory).

Suicide itself is illegal in some countries. In the majority of countries assisted suicide is illegal, which is what you would need for those who lack the 'guts'. Encouraging or facilitating someone to commit suicide is often illegal too, so you can't run suicide boots or organise suicide trips at the moment.

Legalising suicide could solve that issue.

The sine in sin(theta) is usually left out, which is a good approximation for small angles. The B should be in the integral because the field is not homogeneous. For simplicity, you could replace the integral with F_0 sin(omega t)

Then why didn't you just ask it like this? If they keep religion and science separate, I have no problem with it.Of course, that excludes quite a lot of religious views.

Doesn't that say "I know it shouldn't be here, but I want to say it anyway"?

He was also an alchemist.

Those would be needlessly complex with the inhomoheneous magnetic field between the concave magnets. In general, you can just use those found on Wikipedia. More specific can be found under "sinusoidal driving force" and "simple pendulum".

Why do people always need to revert to the 17th century to reference a religious scientist

My first thought was along those lines. This could be abused by religious people: "see, this reputable physics book agrees with us" I have no problem with that little snipet. About this being the authors opinion: what else can it be? The book is quite thorough, spanning almost 1500 pages and all area's of physics. I would find it hard to believe he would be ignorant about the implications of this paragraph.

Neither. There are unscientific humans and unreligious humans. The true essence of being human is to have the potential to produce fertile offspring with other humans. Where "potential" has to be viewed sufficiently broad to include humans that are infertile due to illness or trauma.

mjqksdf ysoidfyo ejrklno mlsiur...

I just finished reading a physics textbook. The last paragraph mentions the anthropic principle and ends with (quickly translated) "A poet would say that the universe was adjusted very precisely, almost as if it was meant for our habitation." Is that acceptable? What business is it of a physics textbook, clearly meant for education, to push forward such contested, theistic, world view without nuance? It doesn't even mention the possibility of manyworld interpretations or other multiverse concepts which render the anthropic principle trivial and irrelevant. Otherwise the book adheres very closely to established science. The only other diversion was a paragraph about the interpretation of quantum mechanics, where it only mentions the Copenhagen interpretation and no others.

Turn it around. Religions or ideologies can be consistent with science if they make no claims that contradict our current understanding of science.

If you cannot find any, you can ask a machining workshop to make them for you.

So the animal cannot despise humans for killing them, because after the killing, they are dead. The intent of cageing animals is not to torture or hurt them, it is to eat them. Also, according to your definition of evil, swatting a fly could be considered evil. I don't think that is a generally agreed upon sentiment.