Thinking in absolutes on charge is a paradigm, there is no intrinsic need beyond labels to think of negative charge as fundamentally negative , we could call the charge we name "negative" positive, it's just a label and the field prevailing in the entire universe may even have universally frozen on these particular values somewhat arbitrarily, but it goes beyond that.
Previous post:
http://dwahts.blogspot.co.za/2018/03/another-thought-on-infinity-from.html?m=1
Further to my previous post on infinity (above) here is something I picked up in comment section from a Facebook post from Jean Paul Guyse
https://m.facebook.com/jeanpaul.guyse?fref=nf&ref=m_notif¬if_t=feed_comment
"Glenn Swart Just looked at your other blogs ref infinity. My theory is a colourless flat pixel lies beneath the curved edge of the event horizon of a black hole, the Zero Squared [-1+1][+1-1]. It may also solve the problem ref dark energy and dark matter.
Under conventional thinking, some-thing can't come from no-thing. But if no-thing is 100% of everything (all negative and positive charges cancelled out) and some-thing is less than 100% (some of both the positive and negative charges remain separate) it simply answers that problem. No-thing of the Zero Squared (100% of everything). It's there but undetectable because it hasn't separated and thus hasn't released any energy beyond its flat surface. Energy is released once the supersymmetry is lost (curvature/warping begins) and the simultaneous Big Bang AND Big Freeze occurs. If the Big Freeze doesn't occur neither can the Big Bang and visa versa. Fire and Ice. This allows for the Universe to both contract and expand at the SAME time. At least TWO open systems but mutually closed into each other. Both stiring into each other and thus entropy doesn't occur. This solves Newton's problem of a close system suffering entropy. Because the Universe is a 'virtual' closed system consisting of two open one's. This is my theory. Quite radical but it works. Not saying it's right but equally it isn't wrong too."
"And just to add, I should have cited Cardot instead of Newton ref Entropy"
