@nickbar1
Yes, certainly but even when the system looked at is a single galaxy, it requires the gravity only model to invented dark matter and that 90% of the galaxy has to be dark matter in order for the gravity model to work. Whereas when simulations are run with EM included, there is no longer any need for the invention of dark matter as the results of the simulation are pretty damn close to the needed value to fit with observations. So a basic conclusion would be that even at galactic scales EM is controlling roughly 90% of the process. It is elegantly simple and requires no invention of things that cannot be directly proven to exist. It is the same as the myth that there is fusion going on in the middle of suns. There is zero evidence for this. In fact there is plenty of direct evidence to show that it is cooler the deeper you go into the sun. Sun spots are the smoking gun that has been in plain sight for so long it is no longer considered the model killer it really is.

@Meher, as nickbar correctly points out, the big long-range difference between gravity and EM is that EM has screening (positive and negative charges), while gravity does not (all mass is positive). Given the near-perfect balancing of positive and negative charges, this means that the EM force is totally negligible over long distances. Not because it falls off slowly, but because there are no sources of sufficient net charge.

When you say that your models are "including EM," therefore, I have to wonder what assumptions they are making about the net charge of various objects?

They are making assumptions based on the way electrical current is observed to move through space in what are termed Birkland currents and that a galaxy is a super sized twisting of two such complementary Birkland currents. So that yes, the galaxy overall has a balance of charges yet that within the galatic structure there is a twisting due to the EM that produces most the of rotational energy in the motion of the galaxy.

OK. What about stars themselves, and the like?
Also, do you have a link to the paper?

thunderbolts.info is the a main website that has a lot of info. and also does continuous analysis of new observations as they are published. It is through this site that I ordered a few books that did an excellent job in both showing the flaws in the current view and the way plasma cosmology solves these flaws. There many youtube videos that are nice introductions to this theory. bigbangneverhappened.org has a technical paper on plasma cosmology and the big bang. plasmacosmology.net is another great resource.

OK, thanks MB. From my cursory reading, it seems like there are flaws both ways. Interesting though.

The observations of the sun show that sun spots are like small dimples in the sun surface allowing us to se deeper into the sun and what is always found are lower temperatures not higher. If there is fusion going on in the middle of the sun there must be a significant increase in temperatures the deeper we look. Also there is no explaination for the multi million degree temperatures on the sun's corona that is outside the surface of the sun itself. So the fusion model must explain how the temperature can go from millions of degrees (supposedly) in the middle of the sun to thousands of degrees at the surface to millions of degrees again in the corona. This is just not explainable in the fusion model. It is easily explainable with plasma model. And suggests that nuclear reactions are taking place in the corona and not in the center. Basically the Sun is a big ball of plasma that is connected into a galactic electrical circuit and that is the source of its energy. Here is a link to a great documentary about plasma cosmology. It explains things much better than I can http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1966820922322808100

"It is easily explainable with plasma model. And suggests that nuclear reactions are taking place in the corona and not in the center"

then what prevent gravitational collapse?

also if there is 'a galactic electrical circuit' then why don't we have measurements of the current flowing from any of our probes?

Electrical current is created through a potential difference existing between two points. The sun is well documented to have by far the greatest positive potential in the entire solar system. Positive particles are being accelerated away from the sun all the time. As electrons are being drawn to the sun. This is electrical current. The farther you get from the Sun the lower the potential. This is very nice and relatively easy to understand article on the Electric Sun model.

http://www.electric-cosmos.org/sun.htm

The coulomb force of repulsion between protons keeps the attractive force of gravity in balance and thus the sun has a relatively stable volume as a result.

If gravitational attraction is being balanced by electric repulsion, how does this model explain collapsing stars and novae/supernovae?