PersianPaladin wrote:He believes that there is no (or much more minimal) external current powering stars and that the current is effectively enfolded (he's not really elaborating on HOW this happens) or "frozen in," at the atomic level.

Frozen-in currents and magnetic fields are essentially the same nonsense that astronomers keep repeating. It goes against all that we know empirically in the laboratory.

It's amazing how nonsense like this can get so much attention.

So, what, he's claiming everything is a permanent magnet? A big iron bar that's been magnetized? Or what?

I mean, it seems like that's what's implied by "electric currents" "frozen in" "at the atomic level." That seems to be the explanation of "permanent"

*ferromagnetism*! Or am I totally missing something here??

*Facepalm!*

Seriously? That can't be his explanation... Everything's a big

*bar magnet*? As someone once said (paraphrasing), 'there are precious few of those floating about in space'...

Has he read about Classical Electromagnetism? 'Cause, at least from your description, his description (are we playing a game of telephone here?) seems exactly synonymous with the Ampere model of permanent magnetism.

(Origin of Permanent Magnetism)

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/3 ... ode77.html
...atoms consist of negatively charged electrons in orbit around positively charged nuclei. A moving electric charge constitutes an electric current, so there must be a current associated with every electron in an atom. In most atoms, these currents cancel one another out, so that the atom carries zero net current. However, in the atoms of *ferromagnetic* materials (*i.e.*, iron, cobalt, and nickel) this cancellation is not complete, so these atoms do carry a net current. Usually, the atomic currents are all jumbled up (*i.e.*, they are not aligned in any particular plane) so that they average to zero on a macroscopic scale. However, if a ferromagnetic material is placed in a *strong* magnetic field then the currents circulating in each atom become *aligned* such that they flow predominately in the plane perpendicular to the field. In this situation, the currents can combine together to form a macroscopic magnetic field which reinforces the alignment field. In some ferromagnetic materials, the atomic currents remain aligned after the alignment field is switched off, so the macroscopic field generated by these currents also remains. We call such materials *permanent magnets*.

In conclusion, *all* magnetic fields encountered in nature are generated by *circulating currents*. There is no fundamental difference between the fields generated by permanent magnets and those generated by currents flowing around conventional electric circuits. In the former, case the currents which generate the fields circulate on the atomic scale, whereas, in the latter case, the currents circulate on a macroscopic scale (*i.e.*, the scale of the circuit).

Seems like he needs to better explain how his theory differs from classical electromagnetism and exactly what his beef is...

(Magnetic Monopoles)

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/e ... ode35.html
*all* steady magnetic fields in the Universe are generated by circulating electric currents of some description. Such fields are solenoidal: that is, they never begin or end, and satisfy the field equation

Nabla * B = 0

This, incidentally, is the second of Maxwell's equations.

(Helmholtz's Theorem)

http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/e ... ode37.html
...steady electric and magnetic fields cannot generate themselves. Instead, they have to be generated by stationary charges and steady currents. So, if we come across a steady electric field we know that if we trace the field-lines back we shall eventually find a charge. Likewise, a steady magnetic field implies that there is a steady current flowing somewhere. All of these results follow from vector field theory (*i.e.*, from the general properties of fields in three-dimensional space), prior to any investigation of electromagnetism.

Hate to beat a dead horse to a bloody pump... But it seems like the above needed reiterating.