As to how I came up with it. Well, frankly, *I* didn't, technically speaking. It was among a number of materials I read on a few "fringe" web sites, however, after reading said sites I've read a bunch of other more reputable sources, however, I can definitely see the holes poked in current theories. There's a decent amount of paradoxical points in conventional theory that get glossed over by conventional theorists. Anyway, for the moment, I'm in agreement with some of the electrical theorists and plasma cosmologists out there in terms of the paradoxes, outright contradictions, and better explanation (with fewer and easier to work out issues) via electrical processes. Though I'll admit it does take a bit of a leap to even CONSIDER the electrical viewpoint, considering all the engrained dogmas of conventional theory.

If you're really interested in a decent resource on Electrical intepretations of anomales and such try out www.thunderbolts.info (however, to point out bias, I'd say you can effectively skip their sections on parallel ancient myths, which are a bit "out there"; I'd also note that the articles are geared toward laymen's understanding rather than academic researchers, so the explanations are a bit simplistic, but they're very understandable and clear statements of current theory, problems, and electrical interpretation. But I've noted to the authors personally that I think the lack of notable sources, citation and a section with more in-depth scientific analysis is their biggest drawback. Aside from that, many of the insights in their picture of the day archive, when taken together, do paint a pretty vivid picture of electrical processes in our solar system, and problems with current theory.)

The main archive is just a daily subject-of-choice, so getting an intro might be better in the "subject index." But you really need to read a number of them on different topics to get a good feel for the model. I think it's actually rather robust, despite the lack of academic-styled discourse (again its aimed more at laymen, and specifically has guidelines not to go into anything confusing to the layman like formulas, jargon, etc.). I'm optimistic that they might start adding more academic-oriented materials soon, or at least linking to academic resources (they've been hesitant strictly for the reason that they haven't started using content-management software yet so tracking broken external links would be difficult, considering the volume of TPOD's).

A few other sites that basically mirror the interpretation but don't offer much more beyond that, and in some cases diverge into more mythological and less scientific discourses are www.holoscience.com and www.plasmacosmology.net (but I tend not to frequent them much, as some of their stuff is a bit less well-grounded than Thunderbolts' TPOD archive).

Long and short of it, I prefer quantity and diversity of resources, so after reading their admittedly POV articles, I've also gone out and read some related articles from reputable sources on things like tornadoes and aother vortexed weather phenomena, the basics of lightning formation/arcing, I've combed through Nasa's photo archives and APOD's (astronomical picture of the day) with Nasa's spin on the Data for comparison.

It's funny how often they just blatantly blurt out "We're not really sure why that does what it's doing!" or something to that effect. Meanwhile I'm sitting there snickering and tying up the loose ends in my head based on the electrical interpretation.

If you've ever looked at the structure of astronomical objects: black holes, pulsars, quasars, blazars, active galactic nuclei, radio galaxies, etc etc. You actually begin to see the EXACT SAME PATTERN in all of them. You get a torus ring or a disk flatly around the middle, with a mostly empty spot inside of that. And at both top and bottom relative to the central axis of the torus or disk you get active energetic jets of material being ejected in both directions (not only that, but they're filamentary and constricted across light years, based on the redshift models and size estimates currently in use; rather than dissipating in 3D like ideal gas in a vacuum). And in most cases you have some kind of energetic "thing" in the middle. Usually a star of some type/class.

We won't even go into the fact that the universe as we know it/have observed it is arranged into a web of constricted filaments of "hot gas" (according to Nasa, mind you!).

But, nope, not me, I haven't done ANY reading at all. </dripping sarcasm> Seriously though, I've read a lot from all over. And I don't subscribe to herd mentality, so I form my own opinions. Currently, I find electrical interpretation far more convincing that ballistic/gravity-only interpretations of things cosmological. I could go into MUCH more detail of my observations/insights, but then we'd be here all night and I'd have to charge for tutoring you. ;o] Kidding.

And I'll grant you it's not based in maths and such so much as in observation and pattern matching. So, I'll be the first to admit, I'm guilty on that count. But eventually the observations/patterns begin to fit together, and understanding develops. And it's really a rather pretty understanding, and a naturalistic cosmological view. It also seems to make sense of some things that current theory just kind of shrugs and goes "we have no clue!" about.

Anyway, I'll end here. I've said a lot and in saying a lot, I've said nothing. It all has a very Zen feel to it, and the irony of what I just said was intentional and not lost on me.

Cheers,
Have a good one!