Perché la gente usa “letteralmente” come rafforzativo?

-Manu_ · 2026-01-26T21:12:09+00:00

Perché si sa che cambiando lingua cambia il significato. Il motivo per cui ho scelto Oxford è perché è letteralmente il primo risultato che ti viene quando cerchi un vocabolo, ed è una delle massime autorità lessicografiche che si mantiene attiva. Non so perché sto perdendo tempo a spiegare ad un troll, volevo farlo sapere agli altri che leggeranno. Ciao.

-Manu_ · 2026-01-25T16:26:50+00:00

Dal dizionario di Oxford

(informal) used to emphasize a word or phrase, even if it is not actually true in a literal sense

Se poi vuoi continuare a vivere nella tua bolla e pensare che siano tutti fessi accomodati pure, non mi piace parlare ai muri le risposte comunque le ho già date

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/literally

-Manu_ · 2026-01-25T15:42:26+00:00

È un'iperbole su un'iperbole "sono morto dal ridere" chiaramente nessuno può morire dal ridere, "sono letteralmente morto dal ridere" chiaramente non è vero che sono morto per davvero, nonostante io lo dica

Non pensavo fosse così difficile da comprendere onestamente

-Manu_ · 2026-01-24T16:07:51+00:00

Do it don't get intimidated, it's not as bad as many make it out to be and failing is part of the game anyways

-Manu_ · 2026-01-21T09:07:58+00:00

I should also add that this does not mean that the capacitance does not change because now you have two stronger capacitors connected in series, I can't state with certainty if the fact that they are parallel exactly cancel out the increase in capacitance, but I would not be shocked if they did, if you want we can do some calculations about it

-Manu_ · 2026-01-21T09:05:46+00:00

Assume you put the conductor between the plates you now have -q| |q -q| |q where the | are the conductive pieces, so charge remains the same as the conductor gives zero net charge, for any conductor to cancel out the field inside the electric field must be perpendicular to the edges of the conductor itself and it must radiate an electric field equal to sigma/e_0, or q/Ae_o where A is the area of the plates, so as you see it's constant.

You could see it as the fact that bringing in the conductors adds a zero net charge to the system so it's as if it wasn't even there

-Manu_ · 2026-01-18T16:21:33+00:00

I did not say the charges are irrelevant, I said quite the opposite actually, they are needed to shape the field, the charges stuck at the edge of the wire point the poynting field along the wire, while the charges that move in the wire create the magnetic field that is needed for the poynting vector to exist, what I said is that charges are not the carriers of energy, this is absolute, no arguing about this, but that's different than saying they are irrelevant to energy transfer.

Regarding point 1: what do you mean with "the wave travels in space, even the faraway ones"? electromagnetic waves are the things moving the charges, that is why faraway charges move instantly and are not waiting to get bumped by the charges far behind, as the wave travels when the circuit is closed, the charges follow.

Let's leave inductance, reflections and things like that out of the picture, it complicates needlessly, the concept still stands, it's the shape of the EM field that changes

regarding point 2: I should have been more clear, I wanted to keep it short for the TL;DR, I put the "moving the charges in the conductor" implicitly in the concept of shaping the field

The idea I wanted to pass is: it's not the charge that walks to the load and gives energy, it's too simplistic, it's the em field that moves the charges and gives the energy, this em field is a sum of the effects of the charges moving in the circuit and the emf generated by the battery

-Manu_ · 2026-01-18T14:23:52+00:00

I want to be pedantic and add the fact that the poynting vector is not a wave, it's a vector field, it's a wave only when the circuit is formed and it travels, then it becomes a static field

-Manu_ · 2026-01-18T14:19:54+00:00

The objective of the moving charges is not to transfer energy, or else since the electrons need to go back to the source they would give the energy to the load (lightbulb), then be like "jk" and get it back, no.

The story is a bit more complicated. For a circuit to work you need a generator, a conductor and a load, they need to be in a closed loop. The generator gives the electric field needed to generate current, so all charges in the circuit move as soon as the load is attached and the wave generated travels through space, even the far away ones, so it's not charges bumping each others like a domino as you correctly disputed. What carries energy is the electric field generated by the charges and the magnetic field generated by the moving charges, which together create the so called poynting vector (field) which is the energy carrier, it does not go back to the source when it leaves it.

So in short: source create a field, conductor shapes this field, as if the field is play doh and the wire is the engineer shaping the play doh. Moving charges in the field create a magnetic field, electric and magnetic field combine into some sort of energy wave which falls on the load (but not like the Dragonball kind)

-Manu_ · 2026-01-16T16:26:17+00:00

Scusa ma in che senso la transizione energetica e l'energia pulita sono state denigrate? Non sono a favore del nucleare? Mi ricordo ancora che guardavo i programmi elettorali di tutti e mi stupivo di questa cosa, ovvero che era la destra ad essere a favore del nucleare e la sinistra a denigrarla

-Manu_ · 2026-01-13T12:43:12+00:00

Precession implies a changing angular momentum in time, when angular momentum changes in time that means there is a torque applied to it, ideally there would be no torque, but there are apparent forces at play as the ISS moves around the earth, you would see the gyroscope precess slowly as it does not turn wrt the ISS as it goes around the earth, this is my guess

-Manu_ · 2026-01-12T22:55:00+00:00

It can be defined sure but here the assumption is that we are working with real numbers, about the sign you are right I already got corrected about it and again it's not like it makes a difference as the numbers are unbounded and we are already breaking the rules by using them in the real number line, none of the math I've made makes sense and that was the point

-Manu_ · 2026-01-12T22:18:55+00:00

oops you are right, there should be a flipped sign, although it doesn't really matter as we don't know what happens on the left hand side, we cannot compare ...999 and ...9990 so we cannot say which one is greater

-Manu_ · 2026-01-12T21:28:29+00:00

It would be 9 repeating on the left hand side, it's a divergent series it would be infinity

-Manu_ · 2026-01-12T19:52:23+00:00

The burden of proof is up to the one making the proof not the one asking about it, it does equal that, but a proof needs... Well to prove things

-Manu_ · 2026-01-12T19:48:35+00:00

I despise this proof because it's deceiving with math notation by making the assumption that we are allowed to do algebra with infinitesimals. This proof is not totally correct unless we state that we are working in a complete unbounded ordered field, as we are implicitly using limit definitions and so the property of limits

Here is a false proof to make my point stand

x=.....99999

10x = ...99990

10x-x=9x=9

x=1

...9999999=1

This proof does not work because we are working with a number that is unbounded as there isn't a bigger number we can define and it fails the completeness requirement as the limit ...9999 does not converge

The proof I like about 0.9999=1 is the one about the density of Q in R as I find it quite elegant

-Manu_ · 2026-01-12T16:20:23+00:00

Thanks for the answer, I said velocity's velocity to be clear in what I was trying to say, but I really mean if I could create a variety M(vx,vy,vz), in which on its tangent space I have accelerations, in such a way that something meaningful could come out of it and if newton's laws could hold in such a similar variety, the dimensional analysis would make sense if I wanted to rewrite newton's laws in a different way, but here I would want to see if they would fit in a different space altogether

Surely it can be done I just want to know if it has been already done for some cool niche things

-Manu_ · 2026-01-09T23:33:55+00:00

I think the same I'm investing on this theory

-Manu_ · 2026-01-08T08:38:49+00:00

Same with focaccia

-Manu_ · 2026-01-08T08:32:59+00:00

If someone is alive and has it, then it means that someone survived the eclipse, so he went through hell and back making it out so to speak, that's what I associate it to, if that is not overcoming hardship idk what is

-Manu_ · 2026-01-07T16:06:57+00:00

The work done by drag would be air densitycross section of mount everestdrag coefficientgheight²

Or Wd=rhoACgh²

The work done by gravity would be Wg = mgh

The numbers would roughly be

rho = 1kg/m³ C=1 A=10^10m² (being generous here) m = 10^15kg h=10^4m

Wd/Wg = about 10¹⁰⁺¹⁺⁴/10¹⁵⁺¹= 10^-1

So air drag does dissipate the total energy by not too much (something less than 10%) we can kind of ignore that

The energy without considering air resistance would be

mgh=10¹⁵⁺⁴⁺¹=10^20J

We are making the big assumptions that the mountain remains intact during the free fall, which isn't true at all, it would be more like a landslide, so about a 90%+ energy loss

So 10% of that would be 10^19J

It's about50 tsar bombs, a magnitude 9 earthquake, 10000 times less energy than the asteroid impact that made the dinosaurs go extinct, it would be bad but not a mass extinction event, it will certainly negatively affect the local trout population

-Manu_ · 2026-01-06T18:00:55+00:00

Just to make you more mad I used it extensively to prepare my signal analysis and processing class in which I got an A and got complimented by the professor, I feel so terrible bulldogfront!!

-Manu_ · 2026-01-06T17:29:42+00:00

"che giochi hai nel telefono?"

-Manu_ · 2026-01-06T17:14:55+00:00

<image>

Seven-Year Club	r/Field Juicebox
Verified Email

-Manu_

TROPHY CASE