Negating the need for anything actually solid

[RPOL382]

If it’s true that every atom has negatively charged electrons on its outer shells, and if it’s true that all matter is made of such electrons, be it our finger or a mountain or a planet, (meaning that all ‘things’ are negatively charged) and if it’s further true that what appears is not necessarily what is ‘out there’ (since we have limited perceptive abilities which are then interpreted by our brains,) then can it be accurately stated that when we touch something, we may not be actually touching, but rather sensing the repelling force of the negative charge of what appears to us as our finger and that which is being ‘touched’?

If so, there need not be anything solid (even though perceptively it seems to appear that way), but it may be forces of some kind repelling each other.

Similarly, motion may be the interaction of what appears as negatively charged ‘things’ being repelled by the positive charges of the medium in which we live.

Where have I gone wrong?

 

[Bill_K]

Similarly, motion may be the interaction of what appears as negatively charged ‘things’ being repelled by the positive charges of the medium in which we live.

Where have I gone wrong?

Posting a private, speculative theory to PF, in violation of our guidelines.

 

[Simon Bridge]

Welcome to PF;

If it’s true that every atom has negatively charged electrons on its outer shells,

... yes, it is.

... and if it’s true that all matter is made of such electrons,...

No it isn't.
Though "matter" is an imprecise term, there are particles other than electrons.
The atoms of everyday life are composed of electrons, protons, and neutrons.

... be it our finger or a mountain or a planet, (meaning that all ‘things’ are negatively charged)

... such objects tend to carry a net neutral charge - although things like "fingers" may have a surface charge separate from them being composed of atoms.

... and if it’s further true that what appears is not necessarily what is ‘out there’ (since we have limited perceptive abilities which are then interpreted by our brains,) then can it be accurately stated that when we touch something, we may not be actually touching, but rather sensing the repelling force of the negative charge of what appears to us as our finger and that which is being ‘touched’?

This is correct though ... there is no such thing as surface contact in the classical sense.

If so, there need not be anything solid (even though perceptively it seems to appear that way), but it may be forces of some kind repelling each other.

That is the definition of "solid".

Similarly, motion may be the interaction of what appears as negatively charged ‘things’ being repelled by the positive charges of the medium in which we live.

"The medium in which we live" would be a mixture of air and water (mostly) ... which is composed of atoms, which have both positive and negative charges. Most of the interactions are between electrons, but some involve the nuclei more directly - such as when covalent bonds form.

Motion is change in position.
Interaction of charges is one way that motion can happen - but there are three other fundamental interactions to consider. As well as electromagnetic interactions between charges, there are nuclear interactions (2 kinds) and gravity.
We do not rely on our limited senses to tell us about Nature.

 

[berkeman]

Thread closed for PF rules violations.

EDIT -- please see these other threads to try to answer your questions about this:

We have had numerous threads on this already:

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=326634
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=700663
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=679696

etc...

Zz.