Astronomers, as a rule, detest all discussion of EM, often going so far as to label people who insist on discussing it cranks. There are exceptions, but also cranks. It can be hard for the public to tell them apart. Astronomers do not assist, perhaps for fear of being labeled cranks themselves.
I know from talks that filaments[0], galactic lobes[1], structure of arms[2], etc relate to EM — but finding anything at the layperson level is basically impossible. Just short blog posts, but no real explanation of how this all relates or what drives it.
The fact of E-M fields affecting the motion of mass, in preference to or in addition to gravitation, is anathema.
To hint at any role of E-M in the large-scale evolution of the universe is a good way to eliminate any possibility of a research grant. Probably this is just because the people deciding don't want to be obliged to learn how to evaluate whether the research program makes any sense. So, plasma fluid dynamics work normally is studied only at the scale of an individual planet or star, or at most a galaxy.
SOFIA, the telescope carried in a Boeing 747, lost its funding in part because mainstream astronomers found its unique capability of mapping magnetic polarization uninteresting.
> As I understand it, planetary magnetic fields influence solar winds; stellar ones structures in the galaxy; etc.
Yes, I was oversimplifying somewhat. Magnetic fields don't affect things like the orbits of planets or stars. But they do have other effects on astronomical scales.
As I understand it, planetary magnetic fields influence solar winds; stellar ones structures in the galaxy; etc.
I’d really like to learn more (preferably, with numbers).