Seminary snoozer, I am not sure I understand your reply. I wasn't trying to make any judgements on fine matter or its properties. But my comment on the the electrical universe theory was meant to refer to a theory which explains(possibly) the universe as we see and observe it, without resorting to creating imaginary and unproven "things" or other dimensions needed to make the mainstream model work. Black holes are theorized but completely unproven 'science." They were theorized as a way to make the math work in the standard model, where gravity is the main creative and regulating force in the universe, even though it is a very, very weak force when compared to the electrical force. Without black holes, neutron stars and things like dark matter, all of which are merely theorized, the math wouldn't work and the whole standard model collapses. So there must be black holes and dark matter because the main stream scientific community says that model is proven. See the problem? The universe we see and try to understand is not a different "sphere" so I am a little confused as to the point you are making. You could say black holes and dark matter are in a different sphere but nobody has yet proven they even exist. We do have "proven" physical laws which are somewhat understood and those laws could be used to explain the phenomena we see in space if applied to their understanding without resorting to different unknown laws and processes. If we can use them why wouldn't we? Why shouldn't we? Isn't Occam's razor applicable? The electrical universe model uses "known laws" and the properties of plasma, electrical currents, magnetic fields, etc., to demonstrate how stars could be formed, operate, move, etc. It seems to have better answers and predictions for phenomena which are not yet understood. A very simple example is the process of planetary scarring. Standard model has no real explanation for how or why this happens yet its effects are seen on many moons and planets. Electrical model has a very simple logical explanation. Their is no need to over-complicate things when you don't have to. I don't see how this has anything to do with the "tower of Babel"