What IS charge and WHAT is actually conserved in Nature?

If we don't know what it is, how do we know it's conserved?

You wrote:

Particles can have positive, negative, or zero charge. These particles can move around, be created, or be destroyed, but their charge is always conserved. Imagine a limited region of space-time where we could create or destroy charge. Could we use such a time span to create a net electric charge? Surprisingly, we could not. Charges could be made or destroyed during the period when the laws did not apply, but when the span ends, the charge must end up at zero. If we turn off a conservation law, it is still enforced. The answer how is one of the most remarkable ideas in all of physics.

A field is what physicists call a region of space-time affected by a particular force. A wind map is a useful analogy. The wind may be fast or slow, headed north or south at any given point, but every point on the map has a particular wind speed and direction. At each point in space-time, the electromagnetic field has a direction (push) and a strength (flux). Keep in mind, however, that nothing is actually flowing through the field.

As I have argued, there is something very wrong with our current physics, which can be resolved by returning to an aether theory. One of the things I argue is that the consideration of the concept of "charge" as a property of matter is problematic, because it leads to a recursive problem in the consideration of matter being an electromagnetic phenomenon, along the "wave particle duality" principle. And I've argued that a revision of Maxwell's equation is required in order to resolve this problem, which solution I outlined here briefly.

So, when you state that "nothing is actually flowing through the field", I have to disagree.

For energy, conservation is enforced by gravitational fields.

Let us first note that in current science, gravity is considered to be a "fictitious force" or "pseudo force" as I've shown in my article on aether physics:

"A fictitious force, also called a pseudo force, d'Alembert force or inertial force, is an apparent force that acts on all masses whose motion is described using a non-inertial frame of reference, such as a rotating reference frame.

The force F does not arise from any physical interaction between two objects, but rather from the acceleration a of the non-inertial reference frame itself.

[...]

A fictitious force on an object arises when the frame of reference used to describe the object's motion is accelerating compared to a non-accelerating frame.

As a frame can accelerate in any arbitrary way, so can fictitious forces be as arbitrary (but only in direct response to the acceleration of the frame). However, four fictitious forces are defined for frames accelerated in commonly occurring ways: one caused by any relative acceleration of the origin in a straight line (rectilinear acceleration); two involving rotation: centrifugal force and Coriolis force; and a fourth, called the Euler force, caused by a variable rate of rotation, should that occur.

Gravitational force would also be a fictitious force based upon a field model in which particles distort spacetime due to their mass."

So, what you are saying is that energy conservation is being enforced by an apparent force (field) involving the "distortion of spacetime" yet does not involve "any physical interaction between two objects". In other words: you're actually saying that energy conservation is being enfoced by non-physical interactions between an object and the absolute nothingness of empty spacetime itself, which is "equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing", to quote Tesla:

"It might be inferred that I am alluding to the curvature of space supposed to exist according to the teachings of relativity, but nothing could be further from my mind. I hold that space cannot be curved, for the simple reason that it can have no properties. It might as well be said that God has properties. He has not, but only attributes and these are of our own making. Of properties we can only speak when dealing with matter filling the space. To say that in the presence of large bodies space becomes curved, is equivalent to stating that something can act upon nothing. I, for one, refuse to subscribe to such a view."

In other words: what you are actually saying is this:

1. charge is a property of matter, the latter can be created and/or destroyed, yet the former cannot;

2. energy conservation is enforced by nothing.

What I'm proposing is this:

1. An actual, physical fluid-like medium called aether exists;

2. the electric field is a phenomenon associated with longitudinal motions in the aether;

3. since particles are electromagnetic in nature, particles can indeed be created and/or destroyed, but charge cannot be the fundamental cause for electromagnetism since being considered to be a property of matter;

4. energy conservation is enforced by the medium, along E = 1/2 m v^2, which includes electric energy conservation when the electric field [E_e] is defined as: [E_e] = grad(Phi) = grad div [v], with [v] representing the flow velocity field of the (fluid like) medium permeating all space, called "aether".

In the end, within our aether model, all that is being conserved is:

1. mass m (of the medium);
2. momentum m [v] (of the medium);
3. energy 1/2 m v^2 (also of/in the medium);

Note that "charge" is not one of these....
Regards,

Hive account@lamare