Split Thread Michael Mozina's thread on Dark Matter, Inflation and Cosmology

Perpetual Student said:

MM:

Either your answers were intentionally evasive or perhaps I failed in making my question clear. I was not asking about auroras, coronal loops, weather patterns, the behavior of comet tails or the solar wind. I was asking about the orbital motion of the solid objects in the solar system. Specifically, the orbit of mars, for example, can be fully accounted for by gravity -- taking into account all the gravitational influences on mars of all the other solid bodies in the solar system. The orbit of mars is in no way influenced by any EM forces. Is that not correct?

Click to expand...

No, that is incorrect IMO. While the 'pressure' from solar wind against the Earth's magnetosphere is certainly minuscule compared to the effects of gravity, it is not 'non existent'.

http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMMAGK26DF_index_0.html
http://www2.nict.go.jp/y/y223/simulation/realtime/home.html

I would encourage you to watch that video about Venus losing it's atmosphere, and to watch a few of the ACE movies since they will most clearly demonstrate what I mean. You can sort of tell from the ACE still images, but the change over time in the movies is more "dramatic" and makes it easier to see what I'm talking about. The solar wind does in fact push against the magnetosphere of the Earth. While that outward (from the sun) "push" is small, it is not zero. Likewise, the effect on a comet is not not zero or the tail would not point away from the sun. The "pressure" is quite real, but very small.

So, back to my original question: If my latter statement is correct, and if EM forces have such a profound effect on galaxies and galaxy clusters, why do we not see any such effects in our solar system on all the solid objects moving around?

Click to expand...

My answer is that we do see them, but their effects are small compared to gravity. If however we move out into deep space, the acceleration process can be more pronounced and have a greater effect over time.

Let's turn the tables now and explain to me why we do not see any sort of expansive "pressure" from "dark energy" inside our solar system?

Michael Mozina said:

It seems to me like your last line of defense is a "liar liar" approach that backfired miserably on you last time. I guess now all you have left is the ever infamous personal attack. Yawn......

Click to expand...

I'm actually not sure you're a liar. Most of what you say is false, even when you're making easily-checked assertions about other poster's positions or claims. But I no longer think that's actually lying... instead, I've come to believe that your mental disability is to severe that you simply don't realize that what you're saying is untrue, even when it's obvious to everyone else.

In other words you may really believe what you say, despite the fact that it is trivially falsifiable. You simply can't face facts that run contrary to your belief system - your mind won't let you absorb them. The risk to you is just too great.

Of course I could be wrong about this diagnosis, I'm certainly not an expert on psychology. But I've been observing your pattern for quite some time now, and it's very clear. It's also very clear that whatever the root of the problem is, you're completely trapped by it with no obvious escape route.

That's why I think that for your own good the best thing you can do is take a break for a long time. Stop posting about physics, stop thinking about the iron sun, just do something else for a while. Then, after a few months or a year, try coming back to it and see if you still see things in the same way, or still want to be involved in this. It's not going to be easy, you're very badly addicted, but you'll be much better off in the long run.

Michael Mozina said:

Perpetual Student said:

So, back to my original question: If my latter statement is correct, and if EM forces have such a profound effect on galaxies and galaxy clusters, why do we not see any such effects in our solar system on all the solid objects moving around?

Click to expand...

My answer is that we do see them, but their effects are small compared to gravity. If however we move out into deep space, the acceleration process can be more pronounced and have a greater effect over time.

Click to expand...

Your answer is we do see them. I'm sure you can provide some quantitative support for your claim. Or is that just another unsupported assertion like so much of the other crap you say?

sol invictus said:

I'm actually not sure you're a liar. Most of what you say is false, even when you're making easily-checked assertions about other poster's positions or claims. But I no longer think that's actually lying... instead, I've come to believe that your mental disability is to severe that you simply don't realize that what you're saying is untrue, even when it's obvious to everyone else.

In other words you may really believe what you say, despite the fact that it is trivially falsifiable. You simply can't face facts that run contrary to your belief system - your mind won't let you absorb them. The risk to you is just too great.

Of course I could be wrong about this diagnosis, I'm certainly not an expert on psychology. But I've been observing your pattern for quite some time now, and it's very clear. It's also very clear that whatever the root of the problem is, you're completely trapped by it with no obvious escape route.

That's why I think that for your own good the best thing you can do is take a break for a long time. Stop posting about physics, stop thinking about the iron sun, just do something else for a while. Then, after a few months or a year, try coming back to it and see if you still see things in the same way, or still want to be involved in this. It's not going to be easy, you're very badly addicted, but you'll be much better off in the long run.

Click to expand...

Thank you Sigmond Fraud.

You do of course realize that your answer to my my previous question flies directly in the face of empirical fact don't you? The solar wind particles do not "decelerate" sol, they "accelerate" up to a comfortable cruising speed and pretty much stay that way till they hit the heliosphere. Your notion of needing "negative pressure' to generate "acceleration and expansion of matter' is simply not the case.

GeeMack said:

Your answer is we do see them. I'm sure you can provide some quantitative support for your claim. Or is that just another unsupported assertion like so much of the other crap you say?

Click to expand...

Did you even bother to watch the video there Dr Denial?

Michael Mozina said:

You do of course realize that your answer to my my previous question flies directly in the face of empirical fact don't you? The solar wind particles do not "decelerate" sol, they "accelerate" up to a comfortable cruising speed and pretty much stay that way till they hit the heliosphere. Your notion of needing "negative pressure' to generate "acceleration and expansion of matter' is simply not the case.

Click to expand...

That's actually completely consistent with what I said. You don't know that, because you don't understand what I said.

Bye now Michael.

Michael Mozina said:

Did you even bother to watch the video there Dr Denial?

Click to expand...

I'll take that to mean it was an unsupported assertion like pretty much all the other crap you say.

Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant IV

Perpetual Student said:

Specifically, the orbit of mars, for example, can be fully accounted for by gravity -- taking into account all the gravitational influences on mars of all the other solid bodies in the solar system. The orbit of mars is in no way influenced by any EM forces. Is that not correct?

Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:

No, that is incorrect IMO. ...

Click to expand...

While it is true in the absolute sense that the orbit of Mars is affected by electromagnetic effects, it is also true that the effect is in fact too small to measure. So in the practical sense of the question, we cannot see the electromagnetic effects on the orbit of anything as massive as Mars, and will not see it even over long time integrations, where simple noise, either physical or numerical, will overwhelm any presumed electromagnetic effect. This includes the physical drag of the solar wind. However, the physical drag of the stellar wind from other types of star, AGB stars for instance, can significantly alter the orbits of massive planets even over astronomically short periods of time (see my article "Final Destiny" in the February 2010 Los Angeles Astronomical Society Bulletin, a reprint from April 2007).

Perpetual Student said:

So, back to my original question: If my latter statement is correct, and if EM forces have such a profound effect on galaxies and galaxy clusters, why do we not see any such effects in our solar system on all the solid objects moving around?

Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:

My answer is that we do see them, but their effects are small compared to gravity. If however we move out into deep space, the acceleration process can be more pronounced and have a greater effect over time.

Click to expand...

We do not in fact see them at all for planetary mass bodies, but we do see them for smaller bodies. Dust in the solar system is significantly affected by solar wind, and even solar radiation pressure (the Poynting-Robertson effect). Larger bodies like asteroids are too massive to be measurably affected by Poynting-Robertson drag, but are measurably affected by the momentum of their thermal emission and absorption of electromagnetic radiation (the Yarkovsky effect and the YORP effect). Both of these are accounted for in long time integrations of asteroid orbits. But these effects are only significant in the presence of the photon flux from a nearby star. Out in the big empty of interstellar space inside the galaxy, and even more so in intergalactic space, these effects are too small to measure, and too local to be of cosmological significance.

Michael Mozina said:

Let's turn the tables now and explain to me why we do not see any sort of expansive "pressure" from "dark energy" inside our solar system?

Click to expand...

Because the effect is too small to observe over short distances typical of the solar system, or even of the galaxy. Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles, or by a time varying magnetic field. We know where magnetic fields come from: They are caused by moving electric charges or by a time varying electric field. This knowledge is a serious constraint on our imagination; we cannot simply invent any electromagnetic field we want to invent, rather we must invent one that is consistent with these known physical causes. Those know physical causes do not create even small scale constant fields without much intervention on our part, they certainly will not create constant fields of cosmologically significant distances. To saying that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics. The cosmological constant must be something else, and we call that something else dark energy.

Even in the presence of dark energy and an accelerated expansion of the universe, as long as the acceleration has the characteristic of a cosmological constant, it is evident that gravitationally bound structures do not expand with the rest of the universe (e.g, Chuieh & He, 2002 and citations thereto). So we would expect dark energy to be invisible within the confines not only of the solar system, or the Milky Way, but even within the local group of galaxies (Krauss & Scherrer, 2007).

See my posts ...

See my posts Dark Matter: Direct Detection? and Dark Energy is a Cosmological Constant III, both from page 33, which remain unanswered. Perhaps they were overlooked by being near the bottom of the page? Both seem to offer strong arguments against Mozina's position, but then I could be biased.

[bah forget it]

Tim Thompson said:

Because the effect is too small to observe over short distances typical of the solar system, or even of the galaxy. Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles[, or by a time varying magnetic field. We know where magnetic fields come from: They are caused by moving electric charges or by a time varying electric field. This knowledge is a serious constraint on our imagination; we cannot simply invent any electromagnetic field we want to invent, rather we must invent one that is consistent with these known physical causes. Those know physical causes do not create even small scale constant fields without much intervention on our part, they certainly will not create constant fields of cosmologically significant distances. To saying that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics. The cosmological constant must be something else, and we call that something else dark energy.

Click to expand...

Yes you put it better than me in the magnetic reconnection thread, I was just seeing it from different parts of the wave-particle duality spectrum. Denying a fields existance due to the particle kind of forgets the whole point of wave particle duality, schoolboy error.

And the cosmological constant could be effected by EM forces, many of alfvens models and other papers propose currents of such magnitude.

Theres this too:

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703694v2

Conventional cosmology hypothesizes that the universe, on a large scale, is isotropic. Yet this year, evidence has shown large-scale anisotropies in measurements other than that of the CBR. Michael J. Longo showed that spiral galaxies tend to spiral more in one direction than another, possibly implying a large scale magnetic field in region some 350 Mpc across. The alignment of the spins seems to point in direction close to that defined by anisotropies in the CBR.

There is also an asymmetry in the Hubble expansion, or in the velocities of galaxies within an even large volume, some 600 Mpc or more across. First Megan L. McClure and C. C. Dyer, and then Dominik J. Schwarz and Bastian Weinhorst used supernova data to find that the Hubble constant is about 10% lower in some directions than in others, implying either an asymmetry in the process that creates the Hubble redshift, or velocities for galaxies of up to 3,000 km/sec.

Is the Cosmic "Axis of Evil" due to a Large-Scale Magnetic Field?

Authors: Michael J. Longo

Click to expand...

And a nice exercise I find for papers like this is count the nouns in it. The higher the more measurable real wold things are in it and the more wothwhile the paper is. The less the more theoretical.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IJMPD..18..809P

The Eddington Lagrangian in the purely affine formulation of general relativity generates the Einstein equations with the cosmological constant. The Ferraris-Kijowski purely affine Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field, which has the form of the Maxwell Lagrangian with the metric tensor replaced by the symmetrized Ricci tensor, is dynamically equivalent to the Einstein-Maxwell Lagrangian in the metric formulation. We show that the sum of the two affine Lagrangians is dynamically inequivalent to the sum of the analogous Lagrangians in the metric-affine/metric formulation. We also show that such a construction is valid only for weak electromagnetic fields. Therefore the purely affine formulation that combines gravitation, electromagnetism and the cosmological constant cannot be a simple sum of terms corresponding to separate fields. Consequently, this formulation of electromagnetism seems to be unphysical, unlike the purely metric and metric-affine pictures, unless the electromagnetic field couples to the cosmological constant.

Click to expand...

Not many nouns there And it suggests a coupling of the EM field to the cosmological constant.

Dark energy is not classical electromagnetism V

Zeuzzz said:

There's this too:
http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0703694v2

Click to expand...

That's Is the Cosmic "Axis of Evil" due to a Large-Scale Magnetic Field, a preprint which was never published off the arXiv server. However, see Galaxy Zoo: the large-scale spin statistics of spiral galaxies in the Sloan Digital Sky Survey, which argues that Longo's statistics are wrong and that his claim for systematic alignment of galaxy spins is fictitious.

Zeuzzz said:

And a nice exercise I find for papers like this is count the nouns in it. The higher the more measurable real wold things are in it and the more wothwhile the paper is. The less the more theoretical.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009IJMPD..18..809P Not many nouns there And it suggests a coupling of the EM field to the cosmological constant.

Click to expand...

Ah, but carefully check the abstract: The Eddington Lagrangian in the purely affine formulation of general relativity generates the Einstein equations with the cosmological constant. The Ferraris-Kijowski purely affine Lagrangian for the electromagnetic field, which has the form of the Maxwell Lagrangian with the metric tensor replaced by the symmetrized Ricci tensor, is dynamically equivalent to the Einstein-Maxwell Lagrangian in the metric formulation. We show that the sum of the two affine Lagrangians is dynamically inequivalent to the sum of the analogous Lagrangians in the metric-affine/metric formulation. We also show that such a construction is valid only for weak electromagnetic fields. Therefore the purely affine formulation that combines gravitation, electromagnetism and the cosmological constant cannot be a simple sum of terms corresponding to separate fields. Consequently, this formulation of electromagnetism seems to be unphysical, unlike the purely metric and metric-affine pictures, unless the electromagnetic field couples to the cosmological constant.

What it suggests is that the formulation under study is in fact "unphysical", unless the electromagnetic field couples to the cosmological constant. This does not suggest a coupling of the EM field to the cosmological constant, but rather hopes for one, in order to save their formulation of electromagnetism.

Meanwhile, note my earlier post: What is "dark energy", really? (16 Jan 2010) wherein I note that while dark energy (which is synonymous with "cosmological constant" for the purposes of this discussion) cannot be classical electromagnetism, there does appear to be a way to get quantum electrodynamics to do the job. So there maybe an EM interpretation for the cosmological constant, it's just not the usual type.

Michael Mozina said:

No, that is incorrect IMO. While the 'pressure' from solar wind against the Earth's magnetosphere is certainly minuscule compared to the effects of gravity, it is not 'non existent'.

...

The solar wind does in fact push against the magnetosphere of the Earth. While that outward (from the sun) "push" is small, it is not zero. Likewise, the effect on a comet is not not zero or the tail would not point away from the sun. The "pressure" is quite real, but very small.

Click to expand...

... exactly as you'd expect from normal electromagnetism. The same normal electromagnetism that tells you how large the force on a solar wind ion is, and the same normal electromagnetism that tells you how inutterably tiny the force on large objects is.

You keep trying to support your position by linking to examples of the exact tiny forces we've been talking about, in agreement with the same force laws that forbid cosmological EM effects. I'd be like my saying, "Your car will explode if it is hit by a feather. To prove my point, here is a video in which a feather knocks over a dust bunny and a dead mosquito."

My answer is that we do see them, but their effects are small compared to gravity. If however we move out into deep space, the acceleration process can be more pronounced and have a greater effect over time.

Click to expand...

Nope, it's the opposite. EM fields are strongest nearest their sources---there's a 1/r^2 in Coulomb's Law and a 1/r^3, effectively, in the Biot-Savart law. How many times have we posted the actual electromagnetic field equations including this distance effect? You're still wishing it away.

Let's turn the tables now and explain to me why we do not see any sort of expansive "pressure" from "dark energy" inside our solar system?

Click to expand...

Because we look at how dark energy actually behaves (you've seen the equation 10 times now) and calculate its actual GR effect on the solar system (you've seen the calculation already) and rely on that. We do not sort of vaguely dream up "some sort of expansive pressure" and then vaguely look for it; this is physics. GR predicts that dark energy, if it exists, has a negligible effect within the Solar System. Do you think GR is getting this prediction wrong?

Tim Thompson said:

While it is true in the absolute sense that the orbit of Mars is affected by electromagnetic effects, it is also true that the effect is in fact too small to measure. So in the practical sense of the question, we cannot see the electromagnetic effects on the orbit of anything as massive as Mars, and will not see it even over long time integrations, where simple noise, either physical or numerical, will overwhelm any presumed electromagnetic effect.
........

Because the effect is too small to observe over short distances typical of the solar system, or even of the galaxy. Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles, or by a time varying magnetic field.

Click to expand...

You don't see the irony of busting my chops because the effect of the EM field is small but visible, but you also give yourself a free pass as it relates to "dark energy" because the effect is "small" inside a solar system?

Essentially the EM field in the solar system is doing exactly what you claim "dark energy" does. It "pushes" against physical objects, even going so far as to blow atmosphere off the planets. It accelerates mass. It has a "small" but noticeable effect inside the solar system. The EM field in this solar system is doing everything you're chalking up to "dark energy" at approximately the same "small scale" you expected to get from "dark energy". Care to explain why these aren't exactly the same processes?

You can't bitch at me because the effect is small and then give yourself a free pass entirely! Where's the small but noticeable effect of "dark energy" inside the solar system if 70 plus percent of the universe is "dark energy"?

ben m said:

... exactly as you'd expect from normal electromagnetism. The same normal electromagnetism that tells you how large the force on a solar wind ion is, and the same normal electromagnetism that tells you how inutterably tiny the force on large objects is.

Click to expand...

Isn't that exactly what you expected to get from "dark energy" inside a solar system?

You keep trying to support your position by linking to examples of the exact tiny forces we've been talking about, in agreement with the same force laws that forbid cosmological EM effects. I'd be like my saying, "Your car will explode if it is hit by a feather. To prove my point, here is a video in which a feather knocks over a dust bunny and a dead mosquito."

Click to expand...

The irony of course is you're doing exactly the same thing with 'dark energy'. You're claiming the effect is small when mass is present, but it has a larger effect "somewhere out there" where mass is spread real thin. In essence you need something that does exactly what the EM field is doing, specifically providing an acceleration pressure that works against gravity, and has almost no effect in terms of changing orbits of planets and comets, etc.

Michael Mozina said:

Isn't that exactly what you expected to get from "dark energy" inside a solar system?

Click to expand...

NO IT IS NOT. How many times have you seen the EFE equation, Michael? Do you think I'm lying when I say "If there is dark energy, GR predicts a negligible effect within the solar system"? Do you think I made a mistake in evaluating GR to make that statement? If you think so, solve it yourself.

The irony of course is you're doing exactly the same thing with 'dark energy'. You're claiming the effect is small when mass is present, but it has a larger effect "somewhere out there" where mass is spread real thin.

Click to expand...

No, I'm claiming that the effect is exactly what GR tells you to expect from a constant vacuum energy density, get it? The effect is not small, as you say, "when mass is present", it's small when you plug a constant vacuum energy density into GR and, in response, GR tells you that it's small.

Again, do you think I'm lying about what GR says? Do you think I made a math mistake? No, you're just saying "Your statements disagree with the mental picture I want to use to discredit you, therefore your statements must be wrong."

Michael Mozina said:

The EM field in this solar system is doing everything you're chalking up to "dark energy" at approximately the same "small scale" you expected to get from "dark energy". Care to explain why these aren't exactly the same processes?

Click to expand...

Yes. Because the things you see near the Sun are obeying the E&M force laws---large accelerations of light, highly-charged objects, zero acceleration of ultraheavy neutral objects---in the strongish fields close to the Sun. (Are you surprised? We've been over this.) And the E&M force laws tell you that they do not have any effect whatsoever at large distances. (Remember? The effects drop off as 1/r^2 or 1/r^3 or worse. We've been over this. Did you forget?) And the E&M force laws tell you that if they did have any effect at large distances, it wouldn't look a darn thing like the observations. (Remember?)

ben m said:

Michael Mozina said:

Isn't that exactly what you expected to get from "dark energy" inside a solar system?

Click to expand...

NO IT IS NOT. How many times have you seen the EFE equation, Michael? Do you think I'm lying when I say "If there is dark energy, GR predicts a negligible effect within the solar system"? Do you think I made a mistake in evaluating GR to make that statement? If you think so, solve it yourself.

Michael Mozina said:

The irony of course is you're doing exactly the same thing with 'dark energy'. You're claiming the effect is small when mass is present, but it has a larger effect "somewhere out there" where mass is spread real thin.

Click to expand...

No, I'm claiming that the effect is exactly what GR tells you to expect from a constant vacuum energy density, get it? The effect is not small, as you say, "when mass is present", it's small when you plug a constant vacuum energy density into GR and, in response, GR tells you that it's small.

Again, do you think I'm lying about what GR says? Do you think I made a math mistake? No, you're just saying "Your statements disagree with the mental picture I want to use to discredit you, therefore your statements must be wrong."

Click to expand...

A rather concise example of why doing physics without getting quantitative is, shall we say, rather limited.

Also yet another example of MM's apparent inability to apply - or even understand - the best theories of gravity and electromagnetism (as "known forces of nature") we have today.

MM:

The above series of posts, that was started by my question about the effects of EM forces in the solar system, is quite interesting.
Everyone agrees (including you) that such effects are immeasurably small on planets and moons. The effects that do exist are due to the sun and diminish with the square of the distance away from the sun so that EM forces are even smaller in interstellar space and infinitesimally small in intergalactic space. In contrast, GR accounts for a negligible effect within the solar system but significant effects on cosmological scales. That reality is contained in the following:

[latex] R_\mu_\nu - \dfrac{1}{2}g_\mu_\nu R + g_\mu_\nu\Lambda= \dfrac{8\pi G}{c^4}T_\mu_\nu [/latex]

which I have asked you how well you understand, but you have not yet responded. Is that a fair assessment as to where we stand?

A note for those who are interested in the science:
Two weeks ago the WMAP 7 year results were announced. These include

• The first direct detection of pre-stellar helium.
• Limits on standard model of cosmology are reduced by 50%
• A confirmation of the predictions of many inflation models.
• Srronger constrains on dark energy and geometry of the universe.

dark energy is not classical electromagnetism VI

Mozina quotes me as follows ...

Tim Thompson said:

While it is true in the absolute sense that the orbit of Mars is affected by electromagnetic effects, it is also true that the effect is in fact too small to measure. So in the practical sense of the question, we cannot see the electromagnetic effects on the orbit of anything as massive as Mars, and will not see it even over long time integrations, where simple noise, either physical or numerical, will overwhelm any presumed electromagnetic effect.
...
Because the effect is too small to observe over short distances typical of the solar system, or even of the galaxy. Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles, or by a time varying magnetic field. We know where magnetic fields come from: They are caused by moving electric charges or by a time varying electric field.

Click to expand...

And Mozina continues ...

Michael Mozina said:

You don't see the irony of busting my chops because the effect of the EM field is small but visible, but you also give yourself a free pass as it relates to "dark energy" because the effect is "small" inside a solar system?

Essentially the EM field in the solar system is doing exactly what you claim "dark energy" does. It "pushes" against physical objects, even going so far as to blow atmosphere off the planets. It accelerates mass. It has a "small" but noticeable effect inside the solar system. The EM field in this solar system is doing everything you're chalking up to "dark energy" at approximately the same "small scale" you expected to get from "dark energy". Care to explain why these aren't exactly the same processes?

You can't bitch at me because the effect is small and then give yourself a free pass entirely! Where's the small but noticeable effect of "dark energy" inside the solar system if 70 plus percent of the universe is "dark energy"?

Click to expand...

Now let me be clear about this much: Mozina asks us ... "You don't see the irony of busting my chops because the effect of the EM field is small but visible, but you also give yourself a free pass as it relates to "dark energy" because the effect is "small" inside a solar system?" I don't see any irony at all, because I did no such thing. Look more carefully at what I actually said ...

Tim Thompson said:

Remember, the cosmological constant is exactly that, both cosmological and constant. We know where electric fields come from: They are caused either by the physical separation of electrically charged particles, or by a time varying magnetic field. We know where magnetic fields come from: They are caused by moving electric charges or by a time varying electric field. This knowledge is a serious constraint on our imagination; we cannot simply invent any electromagnetic field we want to invent, rather we must invent one that is consistent with these known physical causes. Those know physical causes do not create even small scale constant fields without much intervention on our part, they certainly will not create constant fields of cosmologically significant distances. To say that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics. The cosmological constant must be something else, and we call that something else dark energy.

Click to expand...

I did not give myself a "free pass" on anything, and I certainly did not "bust Mozina's chops" over the fact that electromagnetic effects are small but visible inside the solar system. I "busted Mozina's chops" over the fact that his presumed electromagnetic force must be both cosmological and constant simultaneously. I was quite explicit about saying "To say that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics." I "busted Mozina's chops" because he ignores real physics and invents his own personal version of electromagnetism. The real and only issue at play here, the one for which Mozina has no defense is simply this:

Tim Thompson said:

To say that the cosmological constant is electromagnetic is unreasonable and not consistent with known physics. The cosmological constant must be something else, and we call that something else dark energy

Click to expand...