This is my opinion with suggestions to improve the current path EU is taking for its public presentation.
1) The problems in popular cosmology must be clearly stated.
2) For each, the reasons why EU is better must be clearly stated.
In my opinion, both are inadequate at this time.
At this point, my view becomes personal so proceed with that warning.
My web site cosmologyview dot com presents my main 7 suggestions to fix cosmology.
EU must explicitly describe each problem in popular cosmology and the EU solution.
I am sure these suggestions are not perfect but they should be a good start.
1) the mistake with red shifts is the fundamental problem in cosmology.
I rank relativity second.
The red shifts come from the intergalactic medium, not the galaxy. Astronomers continue to claim ridiculous velocities (like 11 times the speed of light) and extreme distances based on this mistake.
My paper thoroughly describes the mistake.
EU has used the work of Halton Arp to identify problems with red shifts but I recall no EU effort to thoroughly explain the origin of this problem.
If my paper is not acceptable then it is my opinion EU should have available the accepted EU explanation for any comparison between cosmologies.
As the fundamental problem it needs a clear explanation from EU.
The EU solution is ignoring the misleading IGM absorption lines and getting the actual velocity from correct analysis of the galaxy's full spectrum and getting a better distance from standard candles like Cepheids.
The necessary result of this explanation is EU can justify its claims of no big bang and no dark energy.
2) dark matter consumes the attention of many.
My paper thoroughly describes the mistake (magnetic fields are ignored) and its consequences, including the Lambda CDM model which is part of this mistake. Stars don't move in a galaxy like planets around the Sun. The model must be fixed or it should be simply replaced by one without so many wrong assumptions.
My paper emphasizes the cosmological model is part of the problem. Any claimed finding of dark matter will confront the problem of the model and its mistakes.
Popular cosmology is model based. EU uses concepts described with testable physics, such as from Alfven and Peratt.
3) gravitational waves are being used to claim evidence for Einstein and for black holes.
Thornhill just dismissed LIGO as 'like seeing images in clouds' and that simple dismissal is a clear mistake for dealing with this situation.
LIGO is detecting something with their sophisticated hardware and software scheme.
The LIGO mistake must be explained by EU so EU demonstrates its search for truth.
Every LIGO GW detection is triggered by an earth tide. The GW detections can be predicted as I did in November 2019.
It is better to explain the mistake than to dismiss it. EU can emphasize what amounts to incompetence of those involved in gravitational physics.
LIGO also presents another opportunity for EU to highlight the mistakes of black holes and neutron stars. Thornhill missed that opportunity.
If my paper is not acceptable then perhaps it can help get a better one. I believe LIGOis important when confronting the various confirmations claimed by the GW detections.
4) space-time is the basis of popular cosmology.
My paper makes its case by explaining a moving observer's reference frame cannot be extended to the scope of the universe.
I know there are other ways to discredit relativity.
EU must find a way, like this paper and using the work of Crothers to simply describe the essential problem with relativity and the necessity of returning to classical physics where evidence is required.
Thornhill has made this statement about valid physics so perhaps EU must include it within a more detailed context.
5) quasars are an anomaly for cosmology with its red shift often a multiple of c.
Thunderbolts via Space News presented a wrong explanation for a quasar. My quasar explanation was posted to EUT some time before that pod cast. The podcast is wrong with both the AGN explanation and the red shift explanation.
If I can see the mistakes then others will too, so TBP must find a better presentation. Perhaps my paper can help.
7) the big bang is an unjustifiable creation story.
My paper makes its case with just logic because the story cannot be justified.
EU needs a simple explanation of the big bang scenario. I know there are many separate topics but a coherent approach is better.
If mine is not acceptable then perhaps it can help get a better one.
Because the big bang can be refuted in many ways the big bang presents an opportunity as a weak link in the chain of cosmology mistakes.
I did not include the Electric Sun in my 7 though it probably belongs in there but the SAFIRE story is only beginning.
There must be an efficient way to present the Electric Universe when seeking public visibility for this alternative cosmology, an approach which is better than the current path. These are my suggestions.