Baloney. Your statements don't jive with any WIKI page on this topic, McGraw-Hill or anyone *besides yourself* apparently. You can't even cite any external reference that actually *agrees with you*!
Upvote
0
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.
A greater electric current ACROSS THE MEMBRANE. I'm not claiming I'm the only one who understands it, I'm just saying you and justa do not.
Baloney. Your statements don't jive with WIKI, McGraw-Hill or anyone *besides yourself* apparently. You can't even cite any external reference that actually *agrees with you*!
Imagine a YEC saying the same thing to you when you asked them to support their claims.
It's also clear about *electrical current*! Only you seem to be claiming that it's not a current.
Charged particles are moving down the neuron.
Every written reference that has been cited calls it a *current*.
You're the only one that insists it's not a current
We aren't talking about currents. We are talking about nerve impulses.
Charged particles are moving down the neuron.
Animation: The Nerve Impulse
Your own reference from McGraw-Hill was talking about *both*. Denial isn't just a river in Egypt.....
Difference, is a YEC espouses a delusional fairy tale and I'm explaining basic cell biology.
Which I think is lazy writing and confusing.
A valid concern, since it's clearly led you to think nerves are copper wiring in our head.
I honestly think you're hallucinating. If you're trying to be funny, it's not. Not even remotely. It's just bizarre at this point.
The problem is that nobody except you seems to have a problem with it. All those WIKI authors used those terms. McGraw-Hill uses those terms as well. Only you seem to have a "problem" with it.
If you want to call the movement of sodium ions down a concentration gradient through a pore in a protein a current then knock yourself out. You still are not describing a nerve impulse.I think you're just being difficult to be difficult. Nobody but you seems to have a problem calling it a current.
McGraw-Hill shows the ion flux across the membrane at a right angle to the nerve impulse.
So what? The net result is the movement of charged particles, aka *current*! Holy cow! Neither one of you can even provide a reference that actually agrees with you. Every WIKI reference and every other external reference *calls it current*!
Apparently only you two need current to run in straight lines.
The problem is that you refuse to understand the context of those terms.
I understand them just fine, and I'm fine calling it a "current" just like everyone else except you two. McGraw-Hill agrees with me. WIKI agrees with me too. Only you two don't seem to understand the terms "voltage" and "current".
Maybe you should explain why you have such an extreme obsession with this minor piece of semantics.
So what?
The net result is the movement of charged particles, aka *current*!
Neither one of you can even provide a reference that actually agrees with you.
I understand them just fine,
and I'm fine calling it a "current" just like everyone else except you two.
McGraw-Hill agrees with me. WIKI agrees with me too.
Only you two don't seem to understand the terms "voltage" and "current".
Me? You're the one that started this whole debate over pure semantics. Oddly enough everyone *except* you is fine with those very same semantics. They use the the terms "voltage" and "current" just like I do.
This means that the nerve impulse is not a current.
What is the 'right' direction for charged particles to move?The current is not moving in the right direction.
*If* that were actually the case, McGraw-Hill and all those WIKI authors would not have called it a current!In order for nerve impulses to be currents it needs to move from one end to other end of the neuron, but it doesn't.
Who's we?We aren't talking about the current. We are talking about the nerve impulse which is not a current.
So what? That direction of travel of the charged particles is irrelevant.Every single references shows the ion flux at a right angle to the nerve impulse. Every single one.
More denial I see. Not a single one of your references actually agreed with you. They all used the term "current" and they explained the movement of charged particles *correctly*. They all agreed with *me*, and not one of them actually agreed with you.They all agree with me.
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?