Here’s some more material for open minded people:
http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html
http://neutrinodreaming.blogspot.com/2011/09/electric-universe-theory-debunked.html
Interesting website. However, it is primarily a set or straw man arguments in which the owner of the site sets up few straw men which he claims are the "basic" tenets of the Electric Universe to knock down. He does not present the arguments properly, so he makes it sound absurdly easy to "debunk." Sorry. No banana.
Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.
The main things that explained away these discrepencies was the involvement of "dark matter" and "dark energy" into their equations as FUDGE FACTORS to make their equations even work! That is not proving anything when you have to invoke MAGIC to make your solution work. . . things you can't detect, much less find! This enters the estate of "FAITH, Moonman62. They have FAITH that they will find something they have not found, seen, or measured. They just want it to be there so their theory and its math will work.
My challenge to YOU still stands. Please explain what I asked you. Don't use a proxy responding to questions I did not ask.
As for his claim there is no peer reviewed work in this field, he fails to recognize that "Plasma Cosmology and Electric Universe" are the same thing under different names. The proponents use them interchangeably. Again, he is one who fails to understand that PLASMA is more than hot gases. Here are some of the papers he failed to find, because he didn't really want to find them:
Hannes Alfvén is the 1970 Nobel Laureate in Physics. He is now called a "renegade physicist" because he was no longer in the "fold" of the consensus politically correct groups who went along to get along and get funded.
Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the evolution of galaxies[30] and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.[18] In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for dark matter in galaxies and with the need for supermassive black holes in galaxy centres to power quasars and active galactic nuclei.[29][30] However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",[19] i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (1018 amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.[33] Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology. Proponents of plasma cosmology claim electrodynamics is as important as gravity in explaining the structure of the universe, and speculate that it provides an alternative explanation for the evolution of galaxies[30] and the initial collapse of interstellar clouds.[18] In particular plasma cosmology is claimed to provide an alternative explanation for the flat rotation curves of spiral galaxies and to do away with the need for dark matter in galaxies and with the need for supermassive black holes in galaxy centres to power quasars and active galactic nuclei.[29][30] However, theoretical analysis shows that "many scenarios for the generation of seed magnetic fields, which rely on the survival and sustainability of currents at early times [of the universe are disfavored]",[19] i.e. Birkeland currents of the magnitude needed (1018 amps over scales of megaparsecs) for galaxy formation do not exist.[33] Additionally, many of the issues that were mysterious in the 1980s and 1990s, including discrepancies relating to the cosmic microwave background and the nature of quasars, have been solved with more evidence that, in detail, provides a distance and time scale for the universe. Plasma cosmology supporters therefore dispute the interpretations of evidence for the Big Bang, the time evolution of the cosmos, and even the expanding universe; their proposals are essentially outside anything considered even plausible in mainstream astrophysics and cosmology.