I think you'll be waiting for quite awhile on that particular issue. The "accepted" ideas of astronomy are often put forth in today's classrooms as "truth" as though these theories have already been explained and have been verified and "proven". In reality however astronomy as a science is nothing like other "hands on" areas of science where we can touch and test everything up close and personal.

The electrical nature of our universe was obvious to Birkeland 100 years ago, and it's obvious to me as well at this point. I can see the electrical arcs traversing the surface of our own sun. I can see the sun interact electrically with the universe itself. I can see the affect of these currents in the Northern Lights. I can see all sorts of areas of plasma cosmology that go MUCH further in explaining the "sturctures" we see in space.

What is frustrating however is that astronomers tend to ignore a lot of the complications of astronomy when they try to calculate things like solar density. For instance their is no mention in solar density calculations of majority of the the presumed mass of our universe that is found in "dark energy". They make absolutely no allowance for Birkeland currents or electromagnetic interactions between bodies for that matter.

IMO, we're sitting on the cusp of great change as it relates to astronomy. Today the technologies we have created to help us study the universe are returning images that are simply not consistent with any of our preconcieved ideas about how the universe functions. It is only a matter of time before we start believing what we are seeing, but myths tend to "die hard", and ridicule and peer pressure is typically used to "hold on" to ideas that don't work anymore.

Change will occur, but change takes time. Only in the last 20 years have we starting putting up satellites that might help answer some of these fundamental questions, and only in the past 15 years have we started to accumulate the data that might help us understand how the universe really works.