Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Face it, without that movement of charged particles in the brain (aka current), no information would move, and consciousness would not exist.
So WIKI is wrong, your own references are wrong, McGraw-Hill is wrong, and every reference that has been cited so far in this tread is "wrong" apparently?
Even what you're calling an 'action potential" is directly related to voltage differences between various chemicals and the movement of charged particles!
You're quibbling over terminology apparently and ignoring the physics entirely. If not for the fact that you have positively and negatively charged particles moving around,
So say you, although no experts do, funny how that is.
Because you haven't the faintest clue what you're talking about and I've worked with nerve cells in labs and know, from observing them myself, that nerves don't work like you think.
It's rather annoying that you've yet to provide an *external* reference that claims no current flows inside of a brain yet, but you insist on belittling others, including WIKI references, images from your own references, and LM's references too. Neither you nor LM has provided a logical scientific rebuttal. Instead you keep handwaving away, and providing nothing to refute the references that have been cited, all of which describe *voltage differences* and *current*!Go to college and take a introductory neuro class for God's sake.
How do you even know what he "thinks" or I "think"? I didn't compare nerve cells to copper wire, you did that! You keep pretending to read minds
It's rather annoying that you've yet to provide an *external* reference that claims no current flows inside of a brain yet
It is what all of the experts say, including an expert in this very thread.
It's rather amusing that your 'expert' doesn't even jive with the WIKI references
Must be how you guys keep incessantly screeching about electrical currents in myelinated neurons.
I'm sorry I'm not conforming to your delusions of what is happening in this thread.
Pure gold must be sigged.
Animation: The Nerve Impulse
"A nerve impulse is an electrical current that travels along dentrites or axons due to ions moving through voltage-gated channels in the neuron's plasma membrane"
You seem instead to be peddling your own delusions that don't even jive with any external scientific references.
What the heck do you want me to do? Write McGaw-Hill an angry email saying I think the language they use in their materials is very inaccurate, confusing and misleading to students? I certainly don't explain it that way, nor does any other teacher in the subject that I know. In fact, it is stressed, repeatedly, that nerves are not wires and action potentials are not electrical currents.
So you say, but apparently no other written expert that you can even cite seems to agree with you.
It really doesn't make a darn bit of difference what terminology you personally use, it doesn't change physics. Moving charged particles are a form of "current'. They generate magnetic fields as they move.
FYI, what I'd like you to do is provide a *written* external reference that actually agrees with you.
Action potentials have been explained to you repeatedly. Stop acting willfully ignorant, I know it's just an act on your part.
Action potentials are generated by special types of voltage-gated ion channels embedded in a cell's plasma membrane.[2] These channels are shut when the membrane potential is near the resting potential of the cell, but they rapidly begin to open if the membrane potential increases to a precisely defined threshold value. When the channels open (by detecting the depolarization in transmembrane voltage[2]), they allow an inward flow of sodium ions, which changes the electrochemical gradient, which in turn produces a further rise in the membrane potential. This then causes more channels to open, producing a greater electric current, and so on.
Not me, you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential
You're the one claiming that all the written reference on the internet are all "wrong' and only you personally understand anything correctly.
I really don't understand why I should waste my time doing that for you.
The wiki article itself is reasonably clear.
It's not my fault you can't figure out when it is talking about a local event across a channel protein instead of down a piece of wire.
It's rather amusing that your 'expert' doesn't even jive with the WIKI references, your reference, or even the image references that he himself suggested.
It's like someone claiming to be an expert on "dark energy"
It really doesn't make a darn bit of difference what terminology you personally use, it doesn't change physics. Moving charged particles are a form of "current'. They generate magnetic fields as they move.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?