While I do see how this makes sense using Newton’s Shell method, I don’t see how Gauss’ Law of Flux for a closed surface proves the same thing. Both Gauss’ Law of Flux and Newton’s Shell method make perfect sense to me in showing that when dealing with a point outside the hollow conducting sphere, the sphere can be treated as a point charge equal to the sum of the surface charges on the hollow sphere (in Newton’s case it would be the sum of the masses). Since Gauss’ Law (as I understand it – maybe this is where my problem lies) is the sum of differentials of the component of the local E field normal to a differential area on the closed surface dA, multiplied by that differential area, yielding units of Newtons/Coulomb X metres squared; if applying this law to a spherical surface about a central charge Q, then the integral is simple, since the distance from any point on the surface to Q is R and we get that the flux for the sphere works out to be the Charge inside divided by epsilon zero. Fine makes, sense to me. But in watching an MIT lecture the professor then applies this law to a hollow sphere and a point inside it. He draws a dashed closed surface inside the sphere upon which the point in question sits and says, well there’s no Q inside that imaginary control surface and thus there is no flux through the surface, i.e. no E field inside the surface. Voila. Voila? What in god’s name is he talking about? Is this some kind of reverse logic? I know there’s no charge inside the surface but there is charge outside the surface which could cause a flux through the surface but for overall field cancellation which Newton’s method actually does prove in a logic way. The MIT prof. professes implies that Guass’ law bypasses the need for Newton’s proof. I just don’t see how; I’d love to, but I just don’t see it. Your thoughts? Sincerely, Ben.