Welcome Electro!
Please forgive the curt reply above to your very well thought out post.
I will agree, impoliteness aside, that some of your very good questions have been well addressed by the Thunderbolts Project even if you choose to limit yourself to their videos alone for information.
ThunderboltsProject - YouTube
1- References to Immanuel Velikovsky as being an enlightenment for Wallace Thornhill. That's like using the Bible to explain Earth's and humanity's history and evolution...
I understand this point, but you must be brave. Immanuel Velikovsky has been so denigrated that it's easy to see how people may "cringe" when his name is brought up, but you must understand that he represents a heroic first step in raising awareness to questions that needed to be asked. Here's what Sagan had to say about it:
Cosmos: "Velikovsky"
2- References to ancient mythology and a sky that was supposedly different at the time. The world sees those symbols as simple drawings of the sun (my opinion as well), as many worshiped the sun as a god all over the world. To me, that's why the symbol is so common in ancient mythology. That was the brightest and most visible object in the sky! Quite frankly, that's the major issue turning me off in the EU theory. I can only imagine the mainstream's view...
The "world" prefers to believe that our ancient ancestors were rather simple minded and institutional science also subscribes to the view that nothing has really dramatically changed within our solar system during the 250,000 years or so that biologically modern human beings have been on the scene.
No scholars have been able to adequately explain the historical significance of Saturn (and many other Cosmic Myths) in so many of the ancient traditions; David Talbott's work has addressed this deficiency in a very methodical and detailed way.
At the heart of it all is the idea that we humans are connected to a living universe, and in an Electric Universe there will indeed be awe-inspiring celestial occurrences. Talbott's focus is on fleshing out events that may have had major impacts on our distant ancestors.
3- Lack of math and demonstration for the theory.
Hard science and observation go the distance, math is a useful tool but not evidence in and of itself. The nature of plasma and electric effects can be tested and directly observed unlike the following:
-Black holes
-Neutron stars
-Supermassive black holes
-Multiple dimensions
-Dark matter
-Dark energy
-Cosmic inflation
-The Big Bang
-The Big Crunch
-Strange matter
-WIMPs
-MACHOs
-Magnetic reconnection
-The hydrogen fusion model of stars
-Gravitational waves
-The Higg's "God" particle
credit for list
Here's a good rant from 2009, still relevant to the situation:
Questions To The Astronomical Community
4- Why couldn't the impact craters on the Moon and Mars be just that, impact craters from meteors, not electrical discharges? We're receiving meteorites here on Earth on a daily basis! We have an atmosphere to protect us, but that's not the case on the Moon or Mars.
It's not mutually exclusive or a matter of totality of one mechanic versus the other. Obviously impacts can and do happen, but a closer evaluation of attributes on the Moon, Mars and other bodies reveal that not every "crater" is a result of an impact. Numerous Thunderbolts Project Video address this subject in great detail.
5- I have never seen any references to electrical discharges in forming the Valles Marineris or the Grand Canyon. Why not water or lava (especially for the Valles Marineris close to giant volcanoes like Olympus Mons, Ascraeus Mons, Pavonis Mons, Arsai Mons...)?
There's quite a bit of information of TBP's investigations into this subject, a good place to start is with
The Lightning Scarred Planet, Mars (Full Documentary) and also the work of
Michael Steinbacher in regards to earth geology which is trickier for the obvious reasons of erosion and climate, etc.
The key here, don't be afraid to ask scary questions, don't be "ashamed" of following a thought process. By no means is anyone asking you to "believe" or support everything proposed; sometimes it's enough just to ask the questions and never support anything because it has been "settled by consensus".
EXCERPT:
An Open Letter to the Scientific Community
(Published in New Scientist, May 22, 2004)
The big bang today relies on a growing number of hypothetical entities, things that we have never observed-- inflation, dark matter and dark energy are the most prominent examples. Without them, there would be a fatal contradiction between the observations made by astronomers and the predictions of the big bang theory. In no other field of physics would this continual recourse to new hypothetical objects be accepted as a way of bridging the gap between theory and observation. It would, at the least, raise serious questions about the validity of the underlying theory.
But the big bang theory can't survive without these fudge factors. Without the hypothetical inflation field, the big bang does not predict the smooth, isotropic cosmic background radiation that is observed, because there would be no way for parts of the universe that are now more than a few degrees away in the sky to come to the same temperature and thus emit the same amount of microwave radiation.
Without some kind of dark matter, unlike any that we have observed on Earth despite 20 years of experiments, big-bang theory makes contradictory predictions for the density of matter in the universe. Inflation requires a density 20 times larger than that implied by big bang nucleosynthesis, the theory's explanation of the origin of the light elements. And without dark energy, the theory predicts that the universe is only about 8 billion years old, which is billions of years younger than the age of many stars in our galaxy.
What is more, the big bang theory can boast of no quantitative predictions that have subsequently been validated by observation. The successes claimed by the theory's supporters consist of its ability to retrospectively fit observations with a steadily increasing array of adjustable parameters, just as the old Earth-centered cosmology of Ptolemy needed layer upon layer of epicycles.
Yet the big bang is not the only framework available for understanding the history of the universe. Plasma cosmology and the steady-state model both hypothesize an evolving universe without beginning or end. These and other alternative approaches can also explain the basic phenomena of the cosmos, including the abundances of light elements, the generation of large-scale structure, the cosmic background radiation, and how the redshift of far-away galaxies increases with distance. They have even predicted new phenomena that were subsequently observed, something the big bang has failed to do.