I have never said that I know much about pure physical stuff. Even so, electricity in all its types is still electricity. It isn't pure heat, it isn't light, it isn't chemical energy locked in the bonds between atoms and molecules.
This is where you are wrong. All energy is related to the electron structure between atoms, and if you don't understand how electrons work (which you clearly don't,) then you really shouldn't be making these large definitive statements about electricity.
I don't really understand why you go that far as to call me names and act high and mighty just because I have different views. I am continuing to answer your posts because you were the one to start pointing fingers at me, not the other way around.
You called me toddler, throwing tantrums, being facetious...What about you? Are we going to play a card game now? You are going to summon the nursing program?
By the way, I am a doctor. I got my master's degree after 6 years in medical university. Physics is not my domain, but I sure have studied some medical physics, biophysics, chemistry, biochemistry, biology, physiology, anatomy, etc, and probably more than you. So, please, there is no need for us to measure and compare our
dicks in public.
And you clearly got your knowledge of the basics pushed out during your pharmacology class or something, because a lot of the statements you have made about things on the base atomic and chemical level sound as though you've never taken the intro levels of A&P at all. (Or perhaps they didn't go over the chemistry portion as thoroughly when you were studying.)
The reason I keep bringing this back up is because what you keep saying is just scientifically inaccurate, and you also seem to be trying to throw your weight around to mess with what could otherwise be an interesting discussion for a potential story idea someone could pick up in a way that almost sounds as though you are proud of your own ignorance.
The "name calling" which started with just the simple term "facetious" was because you made an argument that twisted my words into something I didn't actually say. That is something of a pet-peeve of mine, and I was pointing that out. I said "We could make the scenario in the OP work out if metal no longer conducted electricity." You responded with "You're re-framing the argument, electricity is electricity."
I never re-framed the argument, I was always from the very beginning arguing that there is a difference between bio-electricity and other forms of electricity. It was, in fact, you who were re-framing the argument.
Also, since you claim to have such knowledge about bio-electricity, there is a very simple way to prove my point once and for all. The brain is suspended in the cerebral spinal fluid. So, why is it that the brain doesn't fry itself and activate every single neuron at once every single time even a single neuron discharges? If it was the same kind of electricity as the household electricity we use, that's exactly what would happen. The discharge would conduct through the CSF, and it would fry the entire brain.
Therefore, it is obvious on the face of it that bio-electricity is different from household electricity. If you are as smart as you claim to be, you should be able to see this with just a little bit of critical thinking. And yet, you insist otherwise. If you are a doctor as you claim, you are not a very good one if you don't have such simple critical thinking skills.
Also, it seems strange to me that a doctor wouldn't know about how free electrons work, otherwise called "free radicals," which are carcinogens. This is also a form of electricity, and one that is distinctly different from and far more harmful than bio-electricity.
Perhaps a better definition to make you happy would be some terminology along the lines of "molecularly-mediated depolarization" and "direct electron movement." The former being the type seen in bio-electricity, and the latter being the type seen in plasma and household electricity. Just by the example I gave about the brain not frying itself, there is a very clear difference between the former and the latter.
(And, yes, my entire reason for continuing to pursue this is all about that one instance where you twisted my words. As soon as I see such a thing, something snaps and I feel compelled to deny the person the opportunity to make the attempt at bowing out with some form of parting shot to make them feel good about themselves. I admit that is a character weakness of mine to really drive into people when they do so, but those are the gysts. If you hadn't twisted my words but were still petty enough to try to leave with parting shots, I would have merely called you out for bad form but likely dropped it.)
(Also, on the subject of parting shots, they are something people catch onto. It looks petty. I suggest you stop. Also, as you can see, they do not do as much to definitively close off the argument as you may think. They actually invite response, which I have been repeatedly capitalizing on. It would be far harder for me to continue this conversation if you tried to take the high road without resorting to those parting shots. And, before you attempt to call me a hypocrite for my name-calling (which I have already explained the motive for,) mine always invited the discussion to continue and thus do not qualify as "parting shots.")
