"The phenomena of electrical discharge are exceedingly important, and when they are better understood they will probably throw great light on the nature of electricity as well as on the nature of gases and of the medium pervading space." James Clerk Maxwell, Treatise on Electricity and Magnetism.

While we now know that the terms electro- and magnetic go together, this was not always the case, and the relationship between electricity and magnetism was not always clear. Michael Faraday (1791-1867) was called a charlatan and a fraud when he announced that he could generate an electric current by moving a magnet in a coil of wire.

James Clerk Maxwell clarified our understanding of the relationship between electricity and magnetism. Electric fields can't be divorced from magnetic fields — or vice versa — but conventional astronomy still attempts to do just this.

History:
When geniuses like Johannes Kepler (1571-1630) and Isaac Newton (1643-1727) formulated their theories, very little was known about electricity (oil and gas provided the lighting back then). A treatise had been written on magnetism, and some magnetism is incorporated into astronomical models, but the basis of mainstream theories remains the same: they rely on gravity and inertia. They work on the mistaken premise that space is electrically sterile.

The situation changed briefly in the late 1800s and early 1900s, when electromagnetism was thought the most likely route to a better understanding of space. Indeed, the scientific press was awash with such speculation at the time. However, something happened, and it became taboo to discuss EM in space. Albert Einstein, for example, did not so much as mention EM in his relativity theories, and his mathematical theories effectively removed the concept of the aether.

Magnetic Reconnection and Frozen-in Magnetic Fields
These erroneous concepts are probably the biggest source of confusion in mainstream circles. Ironically, the concept of frozen-in magnetic fields was first proposed by Hannes Alfvén, but he quickly realised his mistake and explained the error. Unfortunately, he was surprised to find that the error persisted, and later in life he wished he had spent more time correcting the misconception.

Magnetic fields are never frozen into a plasma. This is a symptom of mainstream science refusing to acknowledge electric currents (energy transfer) in space. They prefer to talk in terms of magnetic ropes, and so on, because the idea of electricity in space would open up a can of worms for them. They simply refuse to face this fact to any meaningful extent. Furthermore, magnetic field lines do not "reconnect" or merge after they break down and release energy.

Don Scott, a retired professor of electrical engineering, explains the issues in more detail here.

Psychology:
Belief is known to have a profound effect on perception. Witness the fact that euphemisms are employed to conform to the inertia of prior belief. The mainstream prefers to talk in terms of ion storms and electron rains rather than acknowledging the existence of electrical phenomena in space. See the technical section for explanations of some common misconceptions. So many astronomical phenomena scream "electricity", but sophistry is all too often employed to interpret them within the existing paradigm.

Filamentary Birkeland currents in plasma, and double layers, and so on, are not even recognised in mainstream cosmology, let alone understood! And they call it the queen of the sciences!

'Charge separation in space is not possible'
Well, this is the mainstream view. Because the attractive electrical forces between electrons and ions are 39 orders of magnitude greater than the gravitational attraction between their masses, it is assumed that these particles quickly find each other and neutralise.

It is wrong, however, as we now observe charge separation in space. It is therefore important to stress that we should be working backwards from observation, and not extrapolating from some idealised theoretical starting point. Theories of the plasma universe do not begin with neutral matter. They begin with the observation that charges are already separated.

Math
While GR is amenable to maths — if we allow for the fact that so many space probes have suffered inexplicable crashes and anomalous accelerations — the situation with electrodynamics is less simple. How would we go about measuring the voltage of the Earth, for example, when voltage is a relative figure? Would we measure the voltage in relation to the Sun or the Moon? And how could we do this? Running a cable between any two planets presents technical difficulties, whereas problems with GR calculations are simply plugged with exotic hypotheticals.

Science versus Math
Unfortunately, the current cosmological scene is dominated by mathematicians, not scientists, and electromagnetism is notoriously difficult to model mathematically, so they prefer to close their eyes to it. See bad astronomy versus good science, below.

Electrodynamics versus Fluid Dynamics
Another common trick is to refer to electrodynamic phenomena in terms really only appropriate to fluid dynamics. "Electron rains" and "ion storms" are prime examples. These are clearly electrodynamic phenomena, as are "magnetic ropes". Magnetic ropes are in fact Birkeland currents. See technical for further info.

Bad Astronomy versus Good Science
Phil Plait, the self-proclaimed Bad Astronomer, is an unrepentant critic of the Electric Universe. In 2007, on his website badastronomy.com, he launched an attack on the EU model, by proxy, claiming that astronomy does not ignore magnetic fields. This is a straw man, as no such claim has been made. There was a lot of talk about the EU model on the BA forum at the time, and many of the threads were locked by the notorious moderator, Nereid.

"Magnetism is a very important topic in astrophysics (despite some pseudo-scientists lying and saying this force is ignored), but it’s not well-understood. It’s fiendishly complex, so much so that it’s a joke in astronomy."
Phil Plait, The Bad Astronomer

The real issue is that the relationship between magnetic fields and electric currents is being overlooked, and this is a critical omission.

"In order to understand the phenomena in a certain plasma region, it is necessary to map not only the magnetic but also the electric field and the electric currents."
Hannes Alfvén, Nobel Laureate

In other words, magnetism cannot be viewed in isolation. At least Plait admits their fear of magnetism in the process, which is the big giveaway.

Mathematics and the kinetic theory of ordinary gases
See below.

"Newton was unaware of plasma. Today his disciples spend years in training learning when and how to shut their eyes to it." Mel Acheson

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice." Heinlein's Razor

"Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored." Aldous Huxley

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and carry on as if nothing ever happened." Winston Churchill

The following quote from Australian physicist Wal Thornhill provides some further background on the difficulties of working with plasmas, which have contributed to mainstream ignorance on the subject.

"Plasma physics started along two parallel lines. One of them was the hundred-year-old investigation into what was called 'electric discharges in gases'. To a high degree, this approach was experimental and phenomenological, and only very slowly did it reach some degree of theoretical sophistication. Most theoretical physicists looked down on this field which was complicated and awkward. The plasma exhibited striations, double layers, and an assortment of oscillations and instabilities. The electron temperature was often found to be one or two orders of magnitude larger than the gas temperature, with the ion temperature intermediate.

"In short, it was a field which was not well suited for mathematically elegant theories. The other approach came from the highly developed kinetic theory of ordinary gases. It was thought that, with a limited amount of work, this field could be extended to include ionized gases. The theories were mathematically elegant and claimed to derive all of the properties of a plasma from first principles. In reality this was not true. Because of the complexity of the problem, a number of approximations were necessary which were not always appropriate. The theories had very little contact with experimental physics: all awkward and complicated phenomena observed in the laboratory were simply neglected... Theories about plasmas, at the time called ionized gases, were developed without any contact with laboratory plasma work. In spite of this — or perhaps because of this — belief in the theories was so strong that they were applied directly to space. One of the results was the Chapman-Ferraro theory (for a review see Akasofu and Chapman, 1972) which became accepted to such an extent that Birkeland's approach was almost completely forgotten. For thirty or forty years, Birkeland's results were often ignored in textbooks and surveys, and all attempts to revive and develop them were neglected.

"The crushing victory of the theoretical approach over the experimental approach lasted only until the theory was to make experimentally verifiable predictions. From the theory, it was concluded that in the laboratory, plasmas could easily be confined in magnetic fields and heated to such temperatures as to make thermonuclear release of energy possible. When attempts were made to construct thermonuclear reactors, a confrontation between the theories and reality was unavoidable — the results were catastrophic. Although the theories were generally accepted, the plasma itself refused to believe them. This is not to say that Juergens' theory that the sun is an anode is valid. His observation was that the sun appears to violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics in that the heat transfer is the wrong way. My friend Leroy, if I recall correctly, once attempted to explain this by an analogy of a man with a cigarette lighter in his extended arm. Neither suggestion is correct as the sun is not a collection of ordinary gas. It is a collection of matter in the plasma form and, as such, the temperature of the electrons is orders of magnitude higher than the rest of the body (a normal condition for a plasma).

"The approach which Alfvén suggested must ignore the elegant and simplistic ordinary gases theory as the electromagnetic forces within a plasma dominate."

Herbert Dingle, a noted critic of General Relativity and a former president of the Royal Astronomical Society, argued that something essential was lost when the æther was discarded.

"...Lorentz, to justify his transformation equations, saw the necessity of postulating a physical effect of interaction between moving matter and æther, to give the mathematics meaning. Physics still had de jure authority over mathematics: it was Einstein, who had no qualms about abolishing the æther and still retaining light waves whose properties were expressed by formulae that were meaningless without it, who was the first to discard physics altogether and propose a wholly mathematical theory..."
Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (1972).

The Michelson-Morley experiment is often cited as having conclusively falsified æther theory, and this has become scientific scripture despite other researchers arriving at very different conclusions.

In 1928, for example, Dayton Miller stated:

"The effect [of aether-drift] has persisted throughout. After considering all the possible sources of error, there always remained a positive effect."
Dayton C. Miller (1928), quoted in National Philosophy Alliance Proceedings (2000), p.399.

Einstein was aware of Miller’s work. In a letter to Edwin E. Slosson (8 July; copy in the Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem), he conceded that:

"...Should the positive result be confirmed, then the special theory of relativity and with it the general theory of relativity, in its current form, would be invalid. Experimentum summus judex. Only the equivalence of inertia and gravitation would remain, however, they would have to lead to a significantly different theory."
Albert Einstein, letter to Edwin E. Slosson, 8 July (Hebrew University Archive, Jerusalem).

Although Einstein cast the æther aside, Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires a medium of some kind. And if light is a particle (a quanta) moving through a vacuum, as Einstein proposed, then how can it also display wave-like properties? In other words, does the æther help explain the wave–particle duality “paradox”? (The æther can be thought of as a fine elastic medium or plenum that permeates everything.) In summary: how can nothing wave?

"Einstein in his special theory of relativity postulated there was no medium, called the ‘aether.’ But Maxwell’s theory of electromagnetism requires it. And Sir Oliver Lodge saw the aether as crucial to our understanding. So Einstein, at a stroke, removed any possibility that he, or his followers, would find a link between electro-magnetism and gravity. It served the egos of his followers to consecrate Einstein’s ideas and treat dissent as blasphemy."
Wal Thornhill, Electric Gravity in an Electric Universe.

In 1998, physicist Tom Van Flandern authored a paper in Physics Letters A that is still regarded by many as one of the strongest critiques of Einsteinian relativity. Van Flandern argues that Lorentz’s version—which retains an æther through which matter moves—is superior on observational grounds. Lorentz and Einstein’s versions are similar, but differ in a significant respect: the speed of light is not a limiting factor in Lorentz’s framework. Van Flandern argues that the speed of gravity is faster than the speed of light, consistent with Newtonian expectations of near-instantaneous propagation.