Maxwell's equations won't help you understand how time works, so you can't run a successful GPS, for example. They also don't explain why stars introduce le sing effects.

Perhaps dark matter and dark energy are indeed a wrong conclusion - Sabine Hofstadter, to take a mainstream scientist, thinks so as well, and proposes some explanations that don't throw the baby out with the bath water.

Either way, physics thrives when we have observations which don't match our theories, and the only thing we can do to bring them closer is to experiment.

If a paradigm shift turns out to be necessary, then it should happen once the new paradigm is actually capable of explaining at least most (if not all) of the currently understood phenomena. For example, special relativity was perfectly in line with Newtonian mechanics, and could be used to derive the same conclusions for planet motion that Newton had painstakingly measured 400 years ago. If it hadn't been consistent with those (and with Maxwell's equations) than it would have never been accepted. And in fact, it wasn't entirely accepted until one of its more outlandish predictions - gravitational lensing - was observed experimentally, not just in general lines, but down to the actual measurement predicted by the maths.

Or the lensing is explainable using standard optics...

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0409/0409124.pdf

Here's the EU critique:

https://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2015/11/26/lensing-by-refra...

The thing is there were mulitiple ways of interpreting phenomona & through certain cultural choices, a certain orthodoxy was created. The problem we are seeing with modern astrophysics is that in order to explain the working of the universe using only Gravity, theories require esoteric mathematics that are by nature not observable.

Instead of putting all of our eggs in one basket, we should look at each of the foundational assertions of modern cosmology with skeptism & reevaluate our positions, particularly when there are non-observable mathematical artifacts. We have better technology & instruments now. We don't need to double down on the same religious beliefs using ever more esoteric math that is increasingly not falsifiable...

From the definition of "pathological science". Looks more like it applies to the Standard Model from these points...

* The maximum effect that is observed is produced by a causative agent of barely detectable intensity, and the magnitude of the effect is substantially independent of the intensity of the cause.

* The effect is of a magnitude that remains close to the limit of detectability, or many measurements are necessary because of the very low statistical significance of the results.

* There are claims of great accuracy.

* Fantastic theories contrary to experience are suggested.

* Criticisms are met by ad hoc excuses.

* The ratio of supporters to critics rises and then falls gradually to oblivion.

When you look at pictures like [1] it's very hard to accept a kind of galactic-cluster level atmosphere that would produce that type of lensing.

You're also ignoring the observed clock differences between clocks in LEO and clocks on the ground - which happen to have the exact values predicted by GR.

And these are just some of the more neatly observable consequences of GR. There are many others that are more sophisticated to notice, but that an EU theory would have to explain rigorously before it could even be seen as an alternative theory, not to mention hoping to be accepted.

Mind you, it is very likely that GR has some holes, as does QM - after all, we do know that they are not compatible with one another. We also have dark matter and the positive cosmological constant which are iffy. We also see that the maths of GR have a singularity when analyzing what would happen in the center of a black hole, and since we know that these objects exist, it's likely that there are unknown effects that the math doesn't predict and that would prevent the mathematical singularity from forming.

But noting that a theory which has made highly successful and precise predictions has some limitations as well is by no means a reason to throw it out and start from scratch. It's much more likely, just as happened with Newtonian Mechanics, that we will find some extension of GR and QM that can successfully account for the discrepancies. Perhaps dark matter will actually be observed directly, perhaps extending the Standard Model of particle physics. Perhaps some unexpected limits similar to the speed of light will be found that can explain what happens inside a black hole. Perhaps dark energy is simply an artifact of the linear approximations we are using to solve the non-linear equations of GR [2].

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#/media/File...

[2] http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2019/10/dark-matter-nightma...

To your point about throwing out the baby with the bathwater, here is the strength of the EU argument:

"The EU community is a challenger to the standard gravitational model, believing space-time to be a misinterpretation of the Universe. The things we see in the Universe – from large scale filamentary structures connecting galactic clusters, to Earth’s climate and meteorology – are plasma phenomena driven by electromagnetic forces."

Note that it's still in an early phase & the physics is being figured out. This includes a heavy reliance on reproducible physical experimentation & unified models from small to large. Existing classical physical models are preferred. Custom math may come later, as one can create a Hamiltonian to model the phenomona, but the equation does not bring understanding of what is occurring without an underlying physical explanation.

> When you look at pictures like [1] it's very hard to accept a kind of galactic-cluster level atmosphere that would produce that type of lensing.

It's also difficult to accept that space-time is warped, especially without physically reproducible experiments, however we somehow trained ourselves to think this is the orthodox opinion. It was also once difficult to imagine the Earth not being at the center of the Universe.

The EU critique is that plasma is ubiquitous in space & the phenomenon has not been explored. It's only recently that we have discovered the onmipresence of plasma throughout space, which is something that Einstein did not account for in his models.

https://thedailyplasma.blog/2015/12/23/lensing-by-refraction...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astrophysical_plasma

QM does have a connection with Maxwell's Equations as QEM.

https://engineering.purdue.edu/wcchew/qem_papers/QEM_NewLook...

Plasma Physics offers a way to, with physically reproducible experimentation, create a bridge with astrophysics.

There's even multiple hypothesis to explain the nature of Gravity.

Black Holes have not been directly observed & the Plasma Physics/EU explanation is that Quasars are a z-pinch in a galactic Birkeland Current.

https://www.everythingselectric.com/birkeland-currents

How do we know that the Atomic clock frequency itself is not be affected by gravity? It seems like a simpler explination than "space-time" being affected by gravity while the Atomic clock frequency remains consistent in the reference frame.

The problem I have with assuming plasma is pervasive in the void of space is that, unlike the hypothesised dark matter, plasma should be hot and visible. As I understand it, there is mainstream acceptance that there is a possibility that some regions of space, such as the galactic center, could contain plasma (though the preferred explanation is that they contain matter pulled apart by a supermassive black hole), and some other regions such as nebulae do contain plasma, but the picture I linked earlier doesn't show any kind of hot visible substance that could refract light to produce that lensing effect.

If gravity affected the atomic clock frequency, we would need to understand how. Either way, we know from observations of the speed of light being constant in any reference frame that time dilation must exist when moving at high speeds. GR incorporates acceleration and gravity here.

Note that rejecting GR doesn't get rid of space-time (perhaps at best, it gets rid of curved space-time). We know from very good observations that the speed of light is a physical constant, so at least special relativity must be true (or we need some other theory to explain this physical phenomenon).

However, if we got rid of GR we would also need a new explanation for a very old problem: why is an object's inertial mass (the amount that it opposes motion) equal to its gravitational mass (the amount that it is attracted by the earth through Newton's formula)? GR has a beautiful unification of these two masses, making acceleration equivalent to gravity (which also happens to match how we feel, by the way).

Now, if I understand correctly, Plasma Cosmology does not discount GR, but simply proposes that plasma physics is more important in some galactic structures, especially the large-scale structure of the universe. There seem to be some technical limitations (related to implications for the state of the early universe vs observed current state), but perhaps they are resolvable.

Electric Universe starts from there essentially and seems to go much farther, getting rid of gravity and GR (and Special Relativity?) and hits all of the issues I mentioned above.

To your point re: supplementing experimentally backed systems (i.e. Newtonian Mechanics):

"...what is really wanted for a truly Natural Philosophy is a supplement to Newtonian mechanics...and introducing the additional facts, chiefly electrical - especially the fact of variable inertia - discovered since his time..."

"...it may be that when the structure of an electron is understood, we shall see that an 'even-powered' stress in the surrounding aether is necessarily involved. What I do feel instinctively is that this is the direction for discovery, and what is needed is something internal and intrinsic, and that all attempts to explain gravitation as due to the action of some external agency, whether flying particles or impinging waves, are doomed to failure..."

-- Sir Oliver Lodge - Nature, Feb 17, 1921

I'm not sure what this quote is meant to illustrate. The structure of the Electron is now understood in QM (it is structure-less, an elementary particle), the luminiferous aether is disproven, and gravity is understood as equivalent to acceleration, essentially through E=mc2, instead of being carried by particle or wave (though it can cause waves, as recently detected). On the other hand, other fields, such as the electrical field, are shown to reduce to particles flying around (photons, for the electric field), so if the quote was meant to say that electrical charge could replace a graviton, that has proven wrong.