>>14393481it all comes down to an early assumption made in cosmology that holds all matter to be electrically neutral at large scales - it's the only way that "gravity" can dominate and you don't have to deal with electromagnetic interactions in your equations
there's a lot made about how robust evidence for general/special relativity is, but when you look into it a lot of it is REALLY bad - especially when considering the observer-dependent nature of the theory itself (i.e. nothing is absolute except c)
there are galactic jets nobody talks about that have been observed changing shape and traveling superluminally
gravitational lensing is - where it is visible - so extreme not even adding dark matter mass is enough to explain it, and still not visible the way it is supposed to be around the benchmark object, the sun (it doesn't merely fade off with the inverse square, it's pretty much confined to the corona and kinda just... stops - electric universe/plasma cosmology proponents have theorized that this discrepancy is because what is being observed is not photon geodesics moving through curved spacetime, but instead plasma lensing)
electric universe theorists have a fucking BIZARRE track record of predicting observed phenomena that baffle mainstream cosmology (such as, but not limited to, the electrical discharges experienced by near flybys and impacts of satellites, the solar-system scale heliospheric current sheet called the Parker spiral, the existence of charged particle density INCREASE past the heliopause, the connected nature of auroral discharches between the sun, the planets, and the planets' moons, the prevalence of interplanetary and interstellar dust, etc.). oh, and none of this requires either dark energy or dark matter.
i think cosmology and physics are both worried - rightly so - that some of their core tenets and training might be going the way of string theorists. which is to say, mostly abandoned because it's useless and unfalsifiable
