And it ends at 16 minutes. I have a great love for Feynman's explanations but right now I seem to have failed to understand exactly how his example proved charge is conserved locally. The important quotes would be just before and just after the example is shown:
The total amount of charge in a box might stay the same in two ways. It may be that the charge moves from one place to another within the box. But another possibility is that the charge in one place disappears, and simultaneously charge arises in another place, instantaneously related, and in such a manner that the total charge is never changing. [This second possibility for the conservation is of a different kind from the first, in which if a charge disappears in one place and turns up in another something has to travel through the space inbetween.] The second form of charge conservation is called local charge conservation, and is far more detailed than the simple remark the total charge does not change.
I would now like to describe to you an argument, fundamentally due to Einstein, which indicates that if anything is conserved it must be conserved locally.
If we are unable, by any experiment, to see a difference in the physical laws whether we are moving or not, then if the conservation of charge were not local only a certain kind of man would see it work right, namely the guy who is standing still, in an absolute sense. But such a thing is impossible according to Einstein's relativity principle, and therefore it is impossible to have non-local conservation of charge.
I understand the process of the experiment, and how each person sees two different situations. My confusion is the definition of "local" conservation and the later mentioned antonym "non-local" conservation. Directly from his explanation in the first quote it seems that local conservation is defined as "if charge pops up somewhere it must have disappeared somewhere else". What, then, does it mean to have non-local conservation of charge?
I also don't understand how this example hasn't shown the opposite of what he was trying to demonstrate. If a charge can pop up in one place (at the back of the train) and disappear in another (at the front), i.e. local conservation, then the person in the top trailer sees a situation different than the one in the bottom, but this is what violates Einstein's relativity principle, isn't it? The ability to create a charge in one place and have it disappear in another?
Is my understanding of local conservation wrong?