I certainly cannot argue with the extraordinary precision with which general relativity has been found to match observations. Monitoring the orbits of one double neutron star system has confirmed Einstein's predicted gravitational waves (through a shortening of the stars' orbital period) to an astonishing 14 decimal places. GR's status as a theory worthy of the highest recognition was built on success like that.

Nevertheless plasma cosmology does sometimes appear to my naive eyes to come up with more plausible explanations. I would imagine that if plasma cosmologists posited the existence of an object that either violated the laws of relativity or quantum mechanics, this would be held as definitive proof that the theory was catastrophically wrong. But it is actually their oponents who believe certain observations reveal 'black holes' and it is they who come up with theories concerning a universe with 5 large dimensions of space contorted into a certain geometry (which does not look like our universe at all) in order to 'fix' the GR/QM violation problem.

Meanwhile, plasma cosmology simply notes that the supposed evidence matches the plasma focus but who cares what their practical observations say when we have such beautiful mathematics to play with?

Another thing that is very curious to me, is the way that plasma cosmology never gets so much as a mention in pop-science cosmology publications. They mention Big Bang and the Steady State Theory, sure, and explain why the latter ultimately failed. But plasma cosmology sites speak of 'tired light' theories that PREDICTED a CMB of 2.8 to 3.2 degrees K. On the other hand, before its true value was measured by Penzias and Wilson, the Big Bang theory predicted a value of 5K to 50K

If this site is historically accurate, it is plain to see that plasma cosmologists actually PREDICTED the temperature of the CMB to a greater accuracy than Big Bang cosmology. Of course, AFTER the CMB was measured, Big Bang theorists could tweak its many parameters to make it fit. Shouldn't this little detail get a mention?

Here is another example.

New Scientist ran an article about magnetic fields in space and commented 'there are tantalising hints that they run in plasma filaments across...vast tracts of space'. I would have thought that this would have been the perfect opportunity to at least mention Kristian Birkland and the currents named after him, that feature so heavily in plasma cosmology but.....No. NO mention of any plasma cosmology at all!

There really does seem to be some conserted effort to keep PC out of the picture. It cannot be because it is 'unscientific'. ID always gets a chapter devoted to it in 'evolution' books, and would you believe that a Horizon programme on the status of pluto as a planet (or not) gave the last word to an astrologer?

But when that same flagship science program ran a feature on dark matter, they explained that there were TWO possible answers. It does exist, or it does not and we need to modify Newtonian gravity. But there are NOT two, there are THREE! Why not mention the theory that says galaxies are plasma and subject to Maxwell's laws? Why not mention that plasma physicists can account for the rotation curves of galaxies without recourse to dark matter and physics-defying objects like black holes?

General Relativity is truly a triumph, but I understand it deals with gravity only. Is it any wonder that we require such exotic hypotheses as dark matter and dark energy in order to make theory fit observations of a universe that is 99% plasma and (so I understand) therefore shaped by electricity?