CME's, active regions and high energy flares

Michael Mozina said:
Um, how exactly in your mind is "There will be a dark filament induced CME in a few hours from a specific area of the sun" the same as "it's going to rain in the winter"?
Click to expand...
Active regions are ... active! Big surprise that they produce filaments. Big surprise that filaments produce CME.
Big surprise that winters are wet.

But the better reason is that you are (as far as we know) just guessing.
If you had a method of actually predicting that there a specific area of the sun will produce specific activity within a specified time period then you would at least state the method.

The language you use also suggests that you are guessing:
  • Just how many hours are a few?
  • What is the uncertainty in your "few hours" (hours, days, years :D?).
  • How big a CME event do you predict?
  • How accurate are your predictions (e.g. how many fail, how many succeed)?
In fact your guess is in the process of failing. When I see such a vague term as "few" I think 1, 2, 3 (maybe 4 at most). It has been 3 hours since your guess.
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
Active regions are ... active! Big surprise that they produce filaments. Big surprise that filaments produce CME.
Big surprise that winters are wet.
Click to expand...

Ya, but predicting *WHEN* it will rain, down to a few hours is a "science"!

But the better reason is that you are (as far as we know) just guessing.
Click to expand...

Care to make a gentleman's wager on it? I'll bet you a drink the next time we meet. ;)

If you had a method of actually predicting that there a specific area of the sun will produce specific activity within a specified time period then you would at least state the method.
Click to expand...

I already did. I explained to you that he dark filament was moving away from the sun at an ever increasing rate. I also explained we'll see the effect of that process show up in LASCO images. Care to put me to the test for beer?

The language you use also suggests that you are guessing:

[*]Just how many hours are a few?
Click to expand...

I meant about two or three, but then it's a moot point now because it's continued to increase in speed, so it's "happening" as we speak.

[*]What is the uncertainty in your "few hours" (hours, days, years :D?).
Click to expand...

I'd say a 3-5 hour window would be acceptable, but that really wasn't necessary IMO.

[*]How big a CME event do you predict?
Click to expand...

Define "big"? It doesn't look to be headed directly at us, and so "big" is likely to be relative in this case. It's going to be a obvious thing that you'll eventually see in the Lasco images.

[*]How accurate are your predictions (e.g. how many fail, how many succeed)?
Click to expand...

Shall we keep a running count in this thread for a few months?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, but predicting *WHEN* it will rain, down to a few hours is a "science"!



Care to make a gentleman's wager on it? I'll bet you a drink the next time we meet. ;)



I already did. I explained to you that he dark filament was moving away from the sun at an ever increasing rate. I also explained we'll see the effect of that process show up in LASCO images. Care to put me to the test for beer?



I meant about two or three, but then it's a moot point now because it's continued to increase in speed, so it's "happening" as we speak.



I'd say a 3-5 hour window would be acceptable, but that really wasn't necessary IMO.



Define "big"? It doesn't look to be headed directly at us, and so "big" is likely to be relative in this case. It's going to be a obvious thing that you'll eventually see in the Lasco images.



Shall we keep a running count in this thread for a few months?
Click to expand...


In other words, it's all just a wild guess, certainly no better than anyone else might do by looking at some activity and guessing there might be more. It has no predictive value at all in legitimately scientific terms.

We must remember, Michael's qualifications to understand science at a level above that of a grade school child have been repeatedly challenged, and he has never been able to demonstrate that he has any such qualifications. In this thread he clearly demonstrates that once again.

Oh, and the gentleman's wager? Michael has welshed on bets before, as well as proven that lying to support his arguments comes as easily as drawing a breath. His offer to bet anyone about anything is just more of the same kind of meaningless nonsense that makes up the bulk of the material he writes.

Failed argument from ignorance once more, Michael. :D
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, this is the first dark filament induced CME I've seen in the southern hemisphere. Usually the filamentary discharges occur in the northern hemisphere.
Click to expand...
There are no such things as filamentary discharges. There are only filaments (no discharges).
I can see no "dark filaments" in any of the movies. I can see gaps in the existing filaments that someone could interpret as "dark filaments".
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Ya, but predicting *WHEN* it will rain, down to a few hours is a "science"!
Click to expand...
Meteorology is a science. What you are doing is guessing.

Michael Mozina said:
Care to make a gentleman's wager on it? I'll bet you a drink the next time we meet. ;)
Click to expand...
No because you will get it right much of the time. Just like gessing that it will be wet on a winter's day will be right much of the time :jaw-dropp.

Michael Mozina said:
I already did. I explained to you that he dark filament was moving away from the sun at an ever increasing rate. I also explained we'll see the effect of that process show up in LASCO images.
Click to expand...
So your "method" is that every "dark filament" that moves "away from the sun at an ever increasing rate" will produce a CME?
Al least one problem with this:
There is no such thinbg as a "dark filament", only a gaps in the existing filaments.
​
For the latest "dark filament":
  1. What did you measure for its initial velocity?
  2. What is its current velocity?
Or is this just your usual "I see bunnies and dark fliaments in the clouds" logic?

Michael Mozina said:
I meant about two or three, but then it's a moot point now because it's continued to increase in speed, so it's "happening" as we speak.
...
I'd say a 3-5 hour window would be acceptable, but that really wasn't necessary IMO.
Click to expand...
Then your guess:
Michael Mozina said:
It looks like another "dark filament" flare is in progress. You'll notice a moving dark thread at about the 8:00 position that has just started to leave the surface. That much material should result in a full blown CME in few hours.
Click to expand...
has already failed without your 3-5 hour window.

4 hours and no CME yet...
1 more hour and EPIC FAIL!​

Michael Mozina said:
Shall we keep a running count in this thread for a few months?
Click to expand...
Yes:
You can start by making predictions for an upcoming CME event for every active region or every filament on the Sun.
That way we can see what failure rate your guesses have.
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/10/11/ahead_20101011_cor2_512.mpg
http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/10/11/behind_20101011_cor2_512.mpg

Lucky guess eh? I wonder how many in a row I can get right? :)
Click to expand...
Oh the stupidity :jaw-dropp !

The original post cites 2 SDO movies that start about 2010-10-09 08:38 UT and cover 48 hours.
Thus the prediction starts about 2010-10-11 08:38 UT and predicts a CME in 3 to 5 hours time, i.e. around 2010-10-11 10:20 UT.

The first STEREO movie ends at 2010-10-11 08:24:24.
The second STEREO movie ends at 2010-10-11 08:40:23.

Not only does the activity (CME or flare) happen hours before Michael Mozina predicts, it also happens at a different position in the movies.
He has a "moving dark thread at about the 8:00 position" in the orginal movies and the activity is at 3 o'clock (STEREO behind) and 9 o'clock (STEREO ahead).
I am not an astronomer but I do know that the STEREO and SDO spacecraft are in different orbits. It is idiotic to compare the movies without adjusting for this. The web pages of course contain movies made from the spacecraft's point of view.
 
Reality Check said:
Oh the stupidity :jaw-dropp !
Click to expand...

The stupid part is your denial RC. That's just weird.

FYI, I used SDO to designate the position of the filament, and STEREO to demonstrate the CME since SOHO wasn't taking pictures as often. It's irrelevant when the STEREO movies *END*. All I was using them for is to demonstrate the CME became visible a few hours later in the COR images. Who cares when those videos end?

The denial thing is just strange IMO.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The stupid part is your denial RC. That's just weird.

FYI, I used SDO to designate the position of the filament, and STEREO to demonstrate the CME since SOHO wasn't taking pictures as often. It's irrelevant when the STEREO movies *END*. All I was using them for is to demonstrate the CME became visible a few hours later in the COR images. Who cares when those videos end?

The denial thing is just strange IMO.
Click to expand...


And I repeat, you didn't tell anyone anything unique or of any scientific significance. You saw some activity in the Sun's atmosphere then you "predicted" there would be some activity... which already existed. Scientifically there is nothing predictive about it, nothing quantitative, nothing unique. You're pointing out things that exist. Big deal. Like dafydd said... you're spamming the forum.
 
Edited by Cuddles: 
Edited response to removed post.


Science is objective. Kids' guessing games, not so much so. If you had some legitimately scientific previously unknown method for predicting some particular solar phenomena, you would be able spell it out with the relevant math, thorough and proper analysis of data, and quantitative support. What you have is a guess. You see some activity and guess it might continue or increase. You aren't specific about the factors you're using to make your prediction. You aren't specific about times, locations, intensity of activity, pretty much anything. Science is done with numbers, Michael. You're pointing at a picture and saying, "See that stuff starting to act up? I think it's going to keep on acting up." You're looking at a cloudy sky and guessing it might rain. Big deal.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
GeeMack said:
Edited by Cuddles: 
Edited response to removed post.


Science is objective. Kids' guessing games, not so much so. If you had some legitimately scientific previously unknown method for predicting some particular solar phenomena, you would be able spell it out with the relevant math, thorough and proper analysis of data, and quantitative support. What you have is a guess. You see some activity and guess it might continue or increase. You aren't specific about the factors you're using to make your prediction. You aren't specific about times, locations, intensity of activity, pretty much anything. Science is done with numbers, Michael. You're pointing at a picture and saying, "See that stuff starting to act up? I think it's going to keep on acting up." You're looking at a cloudy sky and guessing it might rain. Big deal.
Click to expand...

FYI, the one time I wasted my time bothering to go down to LMSAL to one of their meetings on the STEREO program, they were discussing "their" way of detecting a CME in progress that was based on LASCO/COR images.

I just "predicted" the CME event almost 5 full hours *BEFORE* the mass flow patterns became visible in LASCO/COR images. It's not a "guess", and I can (and will) duplicate the prediction when I see a similar set of scenarios forming in the solar atmosphere. Not all knowledge is mathematical in nature. Sometimes it's simply a matter of looking at the clouds and realizing it's going to rain. That's more than you can do. If you claim otherwise, let's see you accurately "predict" a CME for us in this thread before it becomes visible in the LASCO/COR images. I'm three for three so far in this thread, although I missed one CME that I didn't predict. I have however predicted *BOTH* types of CME's in this thread and I haven't missed yet. That's not luck, that's skill.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, the one time I wasted my time bothering to go down to LMSAL to one of their meetings on the STEREO program, they were discussing "their" way of detecting a CME in progress that was based on LASCO/COR images.

I just "predicted" the CME event almost 5 full hours *BEFORE* the mass flow patterns became visible in LASCO/COR images. It's not a "guess", and I can (and will) duplicate the prediction when I see a similar set of scenarios forming in the solar atmosphere. Not all knowledge is mathematical in nature. Sometimes it's simply a matter of looking at the clouds and realizing it's going to rain. That's more than you can do. If you claim otherwise, let's see you accurately "predict" a CME for us in this thread before it becomes visible in the LASCO/COR images. I'm three for three so far in this thread, although I missed one CME that I didn't predict. I have however predicted *BOTH* types of CME's in this thread and I haven't missed yet. That's not luck, that's skill.
Click to expand...


That's looking at activity and guessing there might be more activity, your argument from ignorance notwithstanding. Science is objective. If you have a previously unknown method for predicting some particular solar phenomena, you can describe it, objectively, so that other people can apply the method, achieve the same results as you, and come to the same conclusion you've reached. Since your "method" is apparently all in your head, subjective, and your method isn't reproducible, it isn't science.

And you still seem to be overlooking this: Your qualifications to understand solar imagery at any level have been challenged, and you have yet to demonstrate that you have any such qualifications. Consequently your use of satellite imagery as a basis for your hunches is wholly unscientific and without merit. The guesses you make as a result can be dismissed as fiction.
 
GeeMack said:
That's looking at activity and guessing there might be more activity,
Click to expand...

Boloney. That specific CME had absolutely nothing to do with previous activity around the active region which only shows how out to lunch you are.

your argument from ignorance notwithstanding. Science is objective. If you have a previously unknown method for predicting some particular solar phenomena, you can describe it, objectively, so that other people can apply the method, achieve the same results as you, and come to the same conclusion you've reached.
Click to expand...

Anyone that WANTED to duplicate the method could easily do so.


Since your "method" is apparently all in your head, subjective, and your method isn't reproducible, it isn't science.
Click to expand...

No, actually I did explain how I predicted the CME to you, you simply ignored it (as usual).

And you still seem to be overlooking this: Your qualifications to understand solar imagery at any level have been challenged,
Click to expand...

And I am the only one of us to accurately predict *BOTH* types of CME's. Talk is cheap GM. Let's see you stick your neck out and actually "predict" a CME down to a few hour window. If and when I see you actually do that, *THEN* and only then can you "challenge" me. Until I see you actually accurately predict a CME, you're just blowing smoke.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Boloney. That specific CME had absolutely nothing to do with previous activity around the active region which only shows how out to lunch you are.



Anyone that WANTED to duplicate the method could easily do so.




No, actually I did explain how I predicted the CME to you, you simply ignored it (as usual).



And I am the only one of us to accurately predict *BOTH* types of CME's. Talk is cheap GM. Let's see you stick your neck out and actually "predict" a CME down to a few hour window. If and when I see you actually do that, *THEN* and only then can you "challenge" me. Until I see you actually accurately predict a CME, you're just blowing smoke.
Click to expand...


Your continued incivility is noted.

You don't have an objective method. It's not scientific. Your qualifications to understand science at the level of a grade school student have been challenged, and you haven't been able to show yet that you possess any such qualifications. You look at a picture and guess. Numbers, Michael, let's see some numbers. Let's see your method described mathematically and objectively so that other people can apply it, achieve the same results you achieve, and come to the same conclusion you reach. You haven't done that yet.
 
GeeMack said:
Your continued incivility is noted.

You don't have an objective method. It's not scientific. Your qualifications to understand science at the level of a grade school student have been challenged,
Click to expand...

This grade school "challenged" individual just did something you will *NEVER* do, namely actually "predict" a CME *BEFORE* it becomes visible in LASCO or COR images. Since you can't even do that much, what does that say about your education? You've got some nerve whining about civility. You don't even known the meaning of that word.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom