# Talk:567: Urgent Mission

(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

The explanation is backwards. Current is defined as the flow of *positive* charge, thus moving from positive to negative terminals. In most cases, the current is actually electrons, which are moving from the negative terminals to the positive. 72.45.165.98 16:48, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Hopefully fixed. This was hard to write clearly. 108.162.219.223 01:43, 11 January 2014 (UTC)

I might be completely mistaken but I've thought that the reason why the positive and negative terminals are assigned as they are originated from observing the electric current passing through the solutions of salt. In the said solutions the current consists of the positively charged ions that get deposited onto the negative electrode, while the positive electrode slowly dissolves. This naturally makes one think that the electric current carries the charged particles from the positive to the negative electrode. Of course it might be that I've completely forgotten what I've been taught in school and gotten everything wrong. 108.162.246.5 01:50, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

In a circuit, it is the electrons, or the negative charges, that are actually travelling. The positive charges, the nuclei of the material carrying the current, remain fixed. This is opposite to the definition of current, which is defined as the flow of positive charge. In other words, the particles that we define as flowing in a current are not the ones that actually move. Confusing, right? I think what you may be referring to is when a salt solution undergoes electrolysis, the anions (negatively charged part of the salt) travel to the anode (positively charged electrode), and the cations (positively charged particles) travel to the cathode (negatively charged electrode). 173.245.52.196 06:03, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Do the same thing with dating conventions, Venerable Bede, and 0 AD. :-) 108.162.221.150 23:25, 24 August 2015 (UTC)

There was not and should not have been a 0 CE (or AD) year. If there were, there would also have to be a 0 BCE (or BC) year. Sticking two zero years into the numbering system would not only have played havoc with mathematical systems which were incapable of treating zero as anything other than empty or null, but would also have created a historian's headache. Besides, even for those who believe in the Bible, God did not make Jesus "both Lord and Christ" until his ascension. 162.158.122.162 23:19, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Ben Franklin just decided to call two opposing charges positive and negative. Blame the guy who decided electrons should be considered negative and protons should be considered positive.108.162.217.71 03:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Up until Franklin's experiments with electricity, there was debate as to whether electricity came in two forms, vitreous, as in a glass rod rubbed with silk, and resinous, which other experiments before him was shown to be the one in the rubber rubbed with fur (or amber rubbed with fur, hence the name). Franklin felt there was a single "fluid" which flowed to produce an electric current. He felt that when an object such as the glass rod had an excess of this fluid, it was "positive", and when there was a deficiency of this fluid, the object was "negative". Current flow was the flow of a region of excess "fluid" to a region deficient in it. Unfortunately what actually flowed was electrons and the glass rod form contained excess electrons, not a deficiency of the positively charged fluid. Therefore, HE was the one who started the convention of calling electrons positive.173.245.52.196 03:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

What we need here is a time machine so we won't waste too much time arguing. -- Weatherlawyer (talk) (please sign your comments with ~~~~)

Wait, I interpereted it completely differently. What if Cueball thought that the Apocalyptic Inventor went evil out of rage over the charge confusion? Trying to make sure that the guy's reason for going evil counts as averting the apocalypse. -[VectorLightning the guest]

At the risk of stating the obvious, the scene is a joke on Terminator (where a time machine was used to fight a robot apocalypse). The time-travelling cueball appears in a Terminator-like bolt. Mountain Hikes (talk) 03:48, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

No, in no way is this even close to the Terminator time travel scenes. 108.162.218.154 14:22, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
For sure it is not a copy of the sphere which appeared in Terminator, which he draws in 2222: Terminator: Dark Fate, but the reference to Robot Apocalypse is a reference to Terminator none the less. But the comic in it self is not mainly a terminator joke. --Kynde (talk) 15:29, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Those of us in the year 2020 would have preferred using the time machine for stopping pandemics...Mathmannix (talk) 15:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

...and those of us in 2022 would have preferred stopping dictators 172.71.102.81 06:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)