Electrons

the best way i learned to understand this stuff is that with an abundance of electrons, the atom has a negative charge, and with a lack, a positive. that ties into the adding on and reduction of the amount of electrons.

eh. then again, i am not in any science courses, and dont aim to be

No. That's more or less right. The atomic table was more or less created by Mendeleev and represents a fairly well-represented "average" of how most atoms exist in nature. Atoms in the periodic table are given an Atomic Number based on how many protons they have. Because as a general rule protons cannot be transferred unless you have degradation or radioactive decay. Electrons should be equal to the amount of protons in a given system so they balance out and form a neutral charge. If there are more electrons than atoms, then the element is said to have a negative charge. If there are less electrons than atoms, then the element is said to have a positive charge.

When it comes to tendencies in reduction or oxidation, that usually deals with the status of the valence electrons. Usually one of the primary rules for Chemistry is the Octet Rule which states that every atom strives to have eight valence electrons filling their outer shell. There are some pre-conditions. Such as aufbau principle and other basic rules that I've forgotten which for the purpose of General Chemistry served to reinforce the idea that electrons should be together in pairs. Usually some systems with an odd amount of electrons will sacrifice their lone electrons to just ensure that the remaining valence electrons are paired together.

Valence electrons play a large part in the chemical properties of certain atoms: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCk0lYB_8c0

To be truthful I'm not that much into science either. I'm just really into the explosions.

you teach?

Nope! But I sure as hell will need help with Java

But then electrons(+) would have mass, would be in the nucleus, and protons(-) would have no mass.

Odd seeing something "pro" having no mass and is (-).

I'm not talking about renaming the particles. I'm talking about redesignating the charges.

So protons would still be the things in the nucleus, but they have - charge (maybe they could be named "negatrons" or whatever to have a more negative-sounding name). Electrons would still be the things in the energy cloud levels with "no mass", but they have + charge.

When you think about it there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, since they're both still opposite anyway. It just happens to be the way it is because the scientists who discovered charges in particles arbitrarily decide that the charge an electron carries should be called a "negative" charge. And it became a convention.

Anyway, this was just a random musing more than anything. I understand how it works and all, I just thought it might be a little more straightforward if it had happened to go down the "lose electrons = reduction" way. Of course, if it got changed now, it'd be suddenly incompatible with all past science, which would cause a great deal more confusion. It'd be like suddenly deciding to switch the names of Europe and Africa.

That would be hilarious... AIDS pandemic in Europe. Africa airing the BBC. Good times.

When you think about it there's nothing fundamentally wrong with that, since they're both still opposite anyway.

Except that protons aren't fundamental particles (the charge of a proton is made up from the individual charges of its quarks) and there are more particles that you seem to be forgetting. So what you're really asking is for the charges in ALL elementary particles to be redefined: quarks, leptons, bosons etc.

I think you're asking a lot.

Except that protons aren't fundamental particles (the charge of a proton is made up from the individual charges of its quarks) and there are more particles that you seem to be forgetting. So what you're really asking is for the charges in ALL elementary particles to be redefined: quarks, leptons, bosons etc.

I think you're asking a lot.

That's irrelevant though. They didn't have to decide for each particle whether to call it positive or negative, they just noticed, "this charge is [some ratio] of [previously discovered particle], therefore it is [charge]".

Again, realistically I'm not asking anything. But all that would've needed to change is the arbitrary decision of a guy in the 18th century to write (-) instead of (+).