© MichaelMozinaCC: If "something" causes the accretion, the movement of the plasma toward the centroids [Define please] will look like an electric current with an associated magnetic field, because the matter is ionized, and thus it constitutes moving electric charges, which is the definition of an electric current, and which will generate a magnetic field.
_But that doesn't mean that the current was the prime mover, nor that the magnetic field is forcing the accretion.http://physics.aps.org/articles/v6/40
FYI, I'm glad this conversation is taking place on this forum without a lot of hoopla and emotional baggage.
You're absolutely right on both counts, and we need to really allow ourselves to explore all the possibilities and consider the fact that it's likely to be a "combination of factors" that ultimately "power" the universe, and gravity is likely to play a role in that process, much to the chagrin of some folks in the EU community.
Alfven talks in terms of sun's actings as homopolar generators. The rotating EM field of the sun induces the movement of currents in the surround plasma body around the sun, slowly turning the sun's rotational spin energy into electrical current. One of the great enigmas of solar physics is why suns seem to spin as slowly as they do. In their gravitational accretion models, the sun usually ends up rotating significantly faster than what we actually observe at it's surface. It could be that sun converts it's rotational energy into electrical current over time, but I doubt that's the "primary" energy supply of the uinverse.
IMO each sun generates some amount of electrical energy internally via fusion (possibly some fission altough neutrino meausurements would suggest it's primarily fusion). I think most of that fusion occurs internally and it occurs mostly around the rapidly spinning core. In contrast, most anode solar models predict the bulk of the fusion occurs in the outer atmosphere, with little if any energy generated internally. I seriously doubt that model is possible or feasable. Brant's type of wireless energy transfer might actually work, but the standard anode (Juergens) model would not. Juergen's model would require a *massive* inflow of electrical current through the whole atmosphere which would necessarily create enormous magnetic fields around the sun that are much larger than we actually observe.
If however the bulk of the energy comes from inside the sun, (or it's wirelessly transmitted to the core like Brant's model) much of the heat and light and other forms of energy do not need to flow through the solar atmosphere, and we should observe much lower magnetic field strengths around the sun. The fact that we do not observe *gigantic* magnetic fields which would be required to power the sun externally, through it's plasma atmosphere, in a Juergen's model, should (and does IMO) in fact *falsify* the Juergen's. I think the original "draw" or primary selling point of Juergen's model was that fact that electron neutrino counts were so low. That made it *seem* like less fusion (2/3rds less) was taking place. The fact that neutrinos have been observed to "oscillate", pretty much pulls that rug right out from under the Juergen's model. It *underpredicts* the correct number of neutrinos that come from the sun.
Recent (since Juergens) changes in our understanding of neutrinos has turned his once "good" argument into a falsification mechanism of his own theory IMO. The sun *does* generate the correct number of neutrinos as predicted by an internal energy source.