Thats OK. There are people out there that don't "buy" evolution either, and I learned long ago to stop attempting to explain the science behind that.
Static electricity can move objects with alot of mass if the charge is sufficient. Ask this kid.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=twP2RhDZkKU
Or this guy, who also mentions the neutral charged item and a charged item.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxZ6AWLpnUw
But you cannot change the mind of some people. I know this from alot of experience.
The kid's water demonstration is fun and interesting. The pertinent point about it is that, being a liquid, the force is serving to act SEPARATELY (roughly) on each molecule on its own. So you're seeing a "mass effect," and not an "effect on mass."** The "neutral" example is no surprise. It's charge differential that matters, as you've pointed out before.
My ideas on the topic are these:
1) Charge movement (and you need to MOVE charge to GET a static collection of it) is always a surface phenomenon. Therefore, DENSITY is always going to be an important part of the calculations we're talking about. If billiard balls were the density of ping-pong balls the discussion would be VERY different.
2) IMO one couldn't even ENGINEER billiard balls with a surface that could hold so much charge that electrostatic forces due to charge differentials could be meaningful in the motions of the heavy balls on a table.
3) If phenolic had some ultra-super property that allowed for EXTREME charges to be held, you would be sure to be seeing "phenolic capacitors." I've never heard of them.
4) IF billiards balls could hold enough charge on their surface to provide forces large enough to be noticeable in the interactions of balls with different charges that would mean that the "conduction characteristics" of the surfaces would be very conductive, i.e., charge would move into and out of the surface very easily. And that would mean:
a) The charge differences between balls would equalize upon touching almost instantaneously (probably in much LESS than a significant fraction of a microsecond). That time scale is tiny compared to the time scale of actual mechanical interaction between the balls (millisecond scale). And the interaction will ELIMINATE forces by equalizing the charge. So, an adherence due to electrostatic differential would be gone in much LESS than one thousandth of the period over which the balls are interacting mechanically.
b) The charge differences would need to be IMMENSE (don't forget, we're talking about ATTRACTION between balls, not REPULSION), and you would get arcing/sparking. BIG sparks. Sparks so big they might set tables on fire--if the electrostatic difference was enough to put significant forces on the balls. So big they would make burn spots (or melted spots!) on the balls. And....so big that the local air, heated to the point of plasma creation, would, by the mini-explosion, actually produce a REPULSION between the balls....which would induce the opposite effect of skid on the balls.
I'd be interested in reading an engineering report of someone claiming electrostatic forces on billiard balls induce perceptible changes in their kinetic characteristics. But until then I'll stick with the qualitative estimations I made above.
EDIT: And a simpler way to think about it: If the electrostatic charges were strong enough to cause changes in the physical movements between balls, you would be able to see it by, for example, moving balls very close to each other and watching them attract like magnets. That's not seen. Could it be enough just to "enhance friction?" Well, if so, the effect would be so short-lived (before the charges equalized) that it would be imperceptible, as I inferred above.
**And don't forget, if that kid's balloon is, say, a sphere of 4" in radius (and the ability to hold a charge is about the same as a billiard ball--in fact it's probably GREATER than a billiard ball), then the balloon could hold over TWELVE TIMES the charge a pool ball of 1 1/8" radius could hold.
