Again I apologize. The spheres are centered on the same origin.

But I get tired of changing these spheres. Let's make the volume of the sphere, and therefore the surface area, variable.
So I can expand or contract the sphere at will. The origin never changes.

So as I vary the volume(and therefore the surface area), does number of field lines hitting me change?

Is that better? or did I make it worse?

 

Weren't we assuming that the 'distance' from the point source is always the same?

As much as I understand of BR549's setup
The generating charge is always the same, as is the observer distance from the centre of charge and the observer size (cross sectional area).
So why would the flux crossing the sphere surrounding the charge at the observer distance change?

 

Hi,

Yes that's why i would think that the 'body' would get the same flux regardless what the diameter of the 'sphere' was. There's no change in distance, so the same amount of flux always passes through one unit body area.
It's like holding an open window in front of the source and asking if nothing changes does the flux through the window change
If the distribution changes, then i would assume the flux changes, at least in general. A square plate isnt a good representation either, i would use a cube or just a rectangular box. I would expect this to be used in order to change the distribution of charge in an organized way so as to construct a reasonable question who's results could be used to compare to other results with other distributions. For example holding a spherical shaped object of ANY size that does not interact with any charge inside of it will never change the flux outside the sphere, even when the size is changed. Nor would a box of any shape unless it reacts with the charge. Given an even distribution of charge within the sphere or box, then we have a change when the object size is changed which of course means points outside the object will experience forces from charges that are either closer or farther away, which also means the flux changes through a given distance area.
I think i interpreted the question correctly, but then i have to think that the question was a little odd.

 

Again I apologize. The spheres are centered on the same origin.
But I get tired of changing these spheres. Let's make the volume of the sphere, and therefore the surface area, variable.
So I can expand or contract the sphere at will. The origin never changes.
So as I vary the volume(and therefore the surface area), does number of field lines hitting me change?
Is that better? or did I make it worse?

OK so let us try to approach it from a different point of view.

I think the key to understanding this is to understand what is a property of charge alone and independent of space, and what is a property of space alone and independent of charge, and of course what properties are combinations of both charge and space and therefore depends upon both.

First the total flux, or total number of field lines if you will, emitted by a charge depends only upon the amount of charge.

10 coulombs will emit or generate 10 times the total flux generated by 1 coulomb.

Second the surface area of a sphere or ball (never mind the volume) is a property of space alone and depends upon the size or radius of the ball.

Now I like your idea of an inflatable ball to hold the charge, but its properties are determined by space alone.

 

If you measure the field strength around a sphere, it is undeniable that, that field is ORIENTATED to the center of the sphere.
Using the same methods that determined field orientation of external field, it is found that there is no charge or field in the center of the sphere.
Therefore it is undeniable that the field is NOT being emitted from the center, and that the center is NOT the source of emission. The center only orientates.
The surface is the source of emission. This is true of any ELECTRIC field.

Electric field strength is inversely related to surface area of charge. NEW LAW.

I have not tried this, but this should be easy to demonstrate...if someone has an electroscope.

Blow a round balloon up to where it's just about to burst. Attach balloon to small non conductive cradle with plastic valve so balloon can be slowly deflated without moving spatially.

Find some fur, rub balloon and induce as much charge as possible. Remove fur and all other charged objects from room.

Now, with a neutralized electroscope, slowly approach balloon and affix electroscope when leafs start to spread.

Now, if what I'm telling you is true, as you deflate the balloon, the leafs on the electroscope should spread more.

Like I said, I have never tried this. If not enough charge can be put on the balloon, maybe some elastic conductive spray paint might be necessary for charge carrier.

In any case, when you get the right setup, I think you will be surprised.

 

If you measure the field strength around a sphere, it is undeniable that, that field is ORIENTATED to the center of the sphere.
Using the same methods that determined field orientation of external field, it is found that there is no charge or field in the center of the sphere.
Therefore it is undeniable that the field is NOT being emitted from the center, and that the center is NOT the source of emission. The center only orientates.

Counterfactual arguments again. AFAIK nobody said it was actually emitted from the center.

 

Ok, so I will change MrAl to a no vote.
And studiot is still a no.
And with nsaspook's diagram, I assume that he is a no also.

Would anyone else like to venture a guess?
Does the flux hitting me change in post# 1?
What do the leafs do in post# 25?

Is the surface area of charge just as important as the distance and magnitude?

Why does the surface area matter in the function of a capacitor, but not on a charge source?

Is a large size charge area(bigger target) more reactive to an external field than a small size charge area?

Can modern physics answer the most important question?

Does size matter?

 

Ok, so I will change MrAl to a no vote.
And studiot is still a no.
And with nsaspook's diagram, I assume that he is a no also.

Would anyone else like to venture a guess?
Does the flux hitting me change in post# 1?
What do the leafs do in post# 25?

Is the surface area of charge just as important as the distance and magnitude?

Why does the surface area matter in the function of a capacitor, but not on a charge source?

Is a large size charge area(bigger target) more reactive to an external field than a small size charge area?

Can modern physics answer the most important question?

Does size matter?

As I said before in a capacitor thread there is a difference between a 'physics' charge source capacitor and a 'electrical' parallel plate capacitor. It's not how they fundamentally operate, the difference is in the structure and how the most of the fields are strongly coupled between the plates that often make the 'electrical' capacitor behave as a conductor with equal circuit currents in/out of the plates. With a 'physics' charge source capacitor the complete charge electrostatic coupling is not strong to you so the overall charge distribution doesn't change much as you are just another hunk of the universe.