I was given an old high school textbook by a friend, decided

everyone does this, which is why the textbooks do. Electrons have negative charge so a flow of positive charge is the negative of the flow of negative charge.

I'm not an electrical engineer, but my assumption would be that people wanted to work with a quote-on-quote "positive" property and it has simply been the convention ever since

>>8643718
WARNING: Having the following information is dangerous.

This is a conspiracy. The powers to be do not want technology to develop beyond a certain point. Misleading nomenclature and unnecessarily complicated process descriptions are a way to obfuscate knowledge and understanding. The economic realities make it impossible to work if you do not operate inside this system of deception. A good portion of scientific theories accepted as truth break down if you formalize them in a clutter free notation. And yes, this was done deliberately and knowingly.

>>8643721
The textbook seems to imply that the positive charges are physically moving. Also current can flow in an open circuit under the right conditions.

>>8643809

X weight in gold is worth y$.
I get paid 10 oz gold for 1 day's worth in gold

At what cost do I value the gold?

>>8643824
If this is a test, then i fail.
There is no way to convert ounce-days to dollars from stated premises.

>>8643848
You have to set your own reference state. It's not just a simple unit conversion

Do people actually don't know the story? Originally physicists thought currents flew from positive to negative and wrote all their equations based on that. Only later they discovered they fucked up (which they do a lot, that's why they will always be inferior to math), but decided it'd be too much effort to rewrite all their equations. So it was kept like that

>>8643823
>The textbook seems to imply that the positive charges are physically moving

They do in plasmas and ionic solutions. Also 'virtual positrons' aka holes move in transistors.

>>8643858
>They do in plasmas and ionic solutions.
We're talking circuits though. There wouldn't realistically be any cations moving or plasma unless your're talking about inside the battery itself.

I only know some of the basics of circuits. Not to much. Don't even know what a transistor is.

>>8643852

>but decided it'd be too much effort to rewrite all their equations.

It's not about equations, it's about practical reasons. You would have to go and change every fucking circuit schematic already made, every plan and project to fit the new current direction. It would be impossible and only complicate things which would inevitably lead to accidents and deaths.

because current isn't exclusive to wires and electrons.

beams of protons are real things.

>>8643823
You are retarded. By definition, current cannot flow in an open circuit. If current IS flowing, it is then a closed circuit.
For instance, if a high enough voltage ionized the air around an open circuit and created a path for current, it would then be a closed circuit

>>8644698
Open circuits don't exist in reality.

It's very possible for electrons to flow through open medium.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_electricity
>The speed of this flow has multiple meanings. In everyday electrical and electronic devices, the signals or energy travel as electromagnetic waves typically on the order of 50%–99% of the speed of light, while the electrons themselves move (drift) much more slowly.

AYY LMAO what is "charge" that "moves"
It's like "holes" in transistors
fuck all reason m8 we have moving nothingnesses with mass n shiet

File: Captura.png (32KB, 1319x217px)

32KB, 1319x217px

>>8643852

>Physicists inferior to maths

Nice trolling.