You are assuming the planets stay in their normal orbits. What I am assuming is that the magnetic forces "capture" the iron core/s and attract and then entrain them in the magnetic field of the rotating star. In that case the core will increase its angular momentum and orbital velocity as it is attracted towards the star. If the magnetic field is strong enough, then the iron core may very well be at an orbit at the surface of the star.. The core in turn may well not retain its spherical shape, but, because this, perhaps, deformed iron mass, is orbiting around the star at its equator and at or near or even beneath the surface, it cannot become an integral constituent of the surface of the star simply because of the difference in surface speeds.

We may be observing a homogeneous mass magnetically influencing the surface of the star, but orbiting at or near the surface at speeds encompassing the effects we are observing. Multiple cores explaining the sometimes anomalous observations of cyclic variations in or observations.

This is not so much the 'mainstream' being wrong, as new information ruling out a simple model.

As far as identifying the source… we still lack a full understanding of what is happening, and whether or not new physics is required to explain it.

The only possibility would be a perfectly regular chain of planets on the same orbit (a uniformly perforated ring), where the holes in the ring would cause the pulsing, but that's of course pure nonsense for many reasons.

Secondly, if that is the case, may it also be the case that the rotational "sideways" movement, (energy), of the beam becomes the dominant feature of your observations?

Thirdly, turning to the actual object. Once simply a star, perhaps it also once had orbiting planets with Iron cores, and, that the magnetic forces during the formation of the pulsar, held the iron cores in orbit around the pulsar? In that case, those orbiting iron cores will inevitably have an interaction with the rotating magnetic field of the pulsar. And, in that case there may very well be another explanation for the rotating beam emanating from a pulsar….

Something for you all to think about.

Still, I'd say the lighthouse model will be taught and demonstrated to undergrads for years to come yet!

I am standing by the "Fall of the House of Usher" analogy which one day I think will be quite mainstream and accepted by all.

I'm just sayin'.

Hopefully no one calls you a crackpot or crank for challenging mainstream mathematical views which are being challenged by discordant observations.

And hopefully you won't have to move to Germany like Halton Arp did.