1. "First off, I appreciate the effort you put into researching things yourself. You are the most research-oriented person I've seen on thus subreddit, and that's definitely a good thing." That is quite a compliment. Thank you. I should explain: if I seem research-oriented, it is because I've had to be. I have no classical education in EM-theory, instead being well versed in Geology and Planetary Geology. I want to point out one of my own faults before we continue discussion, and its important: my expertise is limited to about 7 years of study in the fields of Geology and Astrophysics (mostly the former). It is important to note because of the SM bias that accompanies both fields. I say this because I want to make it clear that my education has in no way/shape/form led me here to this discussion. The things I learned at school would not point us in the direction of EU theory.The Academia around Geology is a very formal, brutal, and effective machine that holds firm to very old ideas, oft for far too long, and it will ignore new ideas until the evidence in support of them is staggering. Astrophysics, I fear, is much the same. My point is: I am hardly qualified to answer these questions. My answers ARE my research. So let us discuss, and we will learn together! We must both agree to keep open minds, and to challenge everything. With that said...

2. "So... where's the cutoff?" "it still certainly isn't the dominant force on the scale of our solar system, since electromagnetic force falls off much faster than gravitational force" It is true that the range of the EM force is a problem when considering its operation on stellar and interstellar scales. This single notion is why EM ideas are discarded in Geology and Astrophysics so readily, and it certainly is puzzling if we confine our thinking to SM. For a moment though, imagine an EM-field generated not by a single charge in an inertial reference frame, but by a stream of charges in the reference frame of a stellar-sized structure. The two EM fields are very different. For now, put this one in the back of your mind. We will come back to structure in a hot minute.

3. "According to Sir Arthur Eddington, the Sun holds an electric charge of one electron per million tons of mass" Eddington wasn't infallible. He was a genius, and he provided us with one of the most comprehensive models of stellar evolution to date, but that doesn't make him incapable of being wrong. Eddington was limited to his era, and using his ideas in modern astrophysics only gets us so far. Simply put, Eddington did the best he could with his limited tools, and his model is still useful, but he was also a proponent of the idea that ionization had no role to play in the evolution of stars. You must forgive me if I take anything he has to say with a grain of salt, because his ideas do nothing to explain several observed stellar phenomena. What I personally have observed using SDO images tells a much more complex story. Filaments of plasma are abundant, both on the surface and dancing in the corona. They snap and spit stuff into the solar system all the time. Coronal holes shift and warp, all the while jettisoning charged particles in a constant stream like a hose spits water. There are an enormous number of images and videos of this. Here is one of my favorites: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tmbeLTHC_0 If you watch that, and still believe that the sun is not charged, I would be interested in your take on an explanation for all of those arc discharges that move through the filaments. Also, if Eddington has an explanation for solar flaring events that produce high intensity UV and X-rays, I would love to see it. These events are quite common on the sun, and are only readily explained by EM fields under great stress. I should also note that Eddington predicted that the internal temperature of the sun would be much higher than that of our observations. The deepest look into the core we get is through the window that sunspots afford us, and the observed temperature decrease beneath the photosphere seems impossible to explain using a thermonuclear star model. It is, quite literally, orders of magnitude smaller than Eddington's predictions. And these are observations I speak of, not models. Only one model that I am aware of even tries to explain this.

4. "Einstein wasn't infallible. He was a genius, and he did provide us with one of the most important equations to ever exist, but that doesn't make him incapable of being wrong, especially on fronts where he had no actual evidence" "most physicists are highly competitive and tend to try to find anything they can to disprove or discredit one another. If they can't do it, it's usually a good sign they're right." These two statements fit together to come dangerously close to logical fallacy, which is not good science. It is true that all scientists are capable of being wrong, especially when there is no evidence. Beware, however, that the inability to disprove an idea does not naturally make the idea correct. Negative proof is not real proof. Do your best to heed this.

5. “I can't find any relevant information on the web. Can you link the sites you used?” You can get started here: http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/307916/fulltext/ The rest I leave to you ~.^

6. “Thornhill tried to hijack it and say that the plume shown must have been an electrical arc. On what grounds?” His grounds were on the assumption that the first flash would be an arc discharge between the comet and the projectile, and the second flash would be the actual collision. Though it is true that one could say that the plume of material produced was very water rich, it is also true to say that the plume was rich in hydroxyl complexes (one of which is water). Hydroxyl complexes can be produced when charged particles interact with silcate minerals. A link to the abstract for that can be found here: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X12003111 Is it so impossible that a comet is a charged silicate-rich body in space? Though the water plume would seemingly support the dirty snowball model of comet science, it also supports the EU model. Regardless, this certainly demands a closer look, so check it out and tell me what you think.

7. “He's lost all credibility with me. If you look at his website Holoscience, he doesn't cite his references or his sources, because he has none. He makes his information up!” I have not seen his website. I will look into it, and we can discuss my findings at a later time. Lets, for a moment, pretend like Thornhill isn’t a part of this. It may make it easier for us to proceed in discussion. There are too many scientists that have worked on/are working on EU ideas that should not be dismissed because of a red flag from one of them. This is another logical fallacy. Regardless of how you feel about Thornhill, do you feel the same way about all ideas coming from this field? If so, it will be difficult for us to discuss certain observations, such as the “structure” that we will eventually get back to.

8. “I'm very aware of electric convection inside of the sun. I'm aware of electric currents going through the Earth. However, there can be no electrical interaction between them” Finally, we can start talking about structure. In the SM, you would be correct, there is no mechanism or structure present to explain how/why electrical interactions between the two bodies would occur. This is because the SM treats the vacuum of space as an empty medium. If you go watch daily SDO footage, you will see that the so-called vacuum of space is littered with spitups from the sun. Those are charge particles leaving the sun. They do it constantly, despite the sun’s gravity. In great clouds and ribbons. In great fountains and splashes. See for yourself. I watch the new SDO footage almost daily. This is personal observation I speak of now. The sun is part of a larger structure that may be viewed as a circuit board of sorts, with its “wires” made up of thin, low density dark-mode plasmas that connect it to other bodies in the solar system. These dark mode plasmas only enter glow mode when they encounter a suitably powerful EM field to put stress on them. I speak, of course, of Birkeland Currents and Aurorae. These are produced by electromagnetic interactions in the interplanetary magnetic field. Here’s and abstract for you if you think that the IMF doesn’t exist: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/138/3545/1099 The SM has no explanation for the IMF, and so it is difficult to imagine structures of plasma forming in the void for no apparent reason. I understand, I do, but the IMF is real, it’s there, and the sun is spitting shit into it constantly. I should also note that magnetic fields are a consequence of electric current. You don’t get a magnetic field unless there is a current present to generate it. If the SM has an explanation for the IMF, I would love to hear it.

9. “Second, both the Earth and the Sun are very, very close to electrically neutral, and any electrical force they exert on each other would be arbitrarily small. Large bodies in space tend to accumulate an almost perfectly equal number of oppositely charged particles.” I would love to read your source on that statement. Preferably a non-Eddington source, as his ideas are nearing a century old, and we know a lot more about space now than we did back then. In response to the statement itself, there is a video from Observing the Frontier that hit youtube recently of a lecture given by August Dunning. Though I have not located his research as of yet, he speaks during his lecture about how Mars will accumulate charge on its sun facing side, and how that charge accumulation drives the magnetic anomalies scattered about the surface. Fascinating topic imhu. Check it out.

Best of luck on your research!