The dude thinks neutron stars and black holes are unfindable pseudoscience. You could legitimately claim that there are better ways to interpret the evidence for those phenomena, but claiming that there is no evidence only demonstrates how confused he is about the field.
This site doesn't get past a first-pass bullshit filter, which is why nobody's investing any more of their time on it.
Do you understand how many people come up with "theories" out of left field in exactly this fashion?
People like Galileo? Einstein? Maxwell? Crick? Pasteur?
I apologize for offending sensibilies here. For those that are actually intellectually curious, I ask you to read the data. Read the data. Read the data.
THEN make up your mind.
Every advance in science comes from people who challenge conventional wisdom, but the vast majority of people who challenge conventional wisdom end up being wrong.
I did read some of the page, but gave up after it was clear that he thought his "Electric Sky" hypothesis was an alternative to general relativity. It might very well be one could construct a credible argument in some areas, but look at the wikipedia page for tests of General Relativity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tests_of_general_relativity
A new theory can't just provide an alternative to one of those phenomenon or a handful. It must make the same prediction in every single case where General Relativity has been tested and proven right - and then it has to make new predictions where General Relativity will fail. That is the standard by which General Relativity replaced Newton, and by which we would test this if it had any hope of providing a replacement.
It is certainly true that cosmologists are accumulating puzzles and I expect that sooner or later we'll get a new theory that can resolve them. But this theory can't even explain the old puzzles that brought down Newton.
Look, I've been reading the same science you have been for 25 years. I have excitedly followed every development from Hawkings discovery of black holes to Feynmans physics work to all the various string theory, dark matter, red-shift big-bang, etc...
I've been reading the same things as you have. I believed them too, as far as one can without any hard evidence. Even the people in this line of work tell you they have ideas, but few facts. When I found this, it seemed to actually answer, in a lab, no less, some things that common astrophysics can not explain. And it does it coherently, in a methodology that can be observed in a lab.
I love science as much as you guys do, and I think you ought to at least acquaint yourself with the plasma sciences, as they are amazingly explanatory of observed interactions both here and in deep space.
I'm not playing zealot here. Take the info as you will. But when I see a scientific explanation that stands up to scientific-method scrutiny, I believe it deserves to be considered in relation to other hypotheses that claim to explain events in a conflicting way.
You mention that you think EU stands up to scientific-method scrutiny. I was looking through the site and I wasn't able to find any examples of a place where EU makes a correct quantitative prediction about some phenomenon where conventional cosmology is unable to?
Also, how would you use EU to quantitatively predict how the orbits of planets diverge from what Kepler's laws would predict, or how the time measurements aboard GPS satellites diverge from clocks on the ground? Or was the page you linked to wrong in claiming that EU disprove's Einstein's relativity?
This site doesn't get past a first-pass bullshit filter, which is why nobody's investing any more of their time on it.
Do you understand how many people come up with "theories" out of left field in exactly this fashion?