So it's just "darker". Period. It's also darker in 193A, 221A and 335A.
It's darker in some wavelengths, yes.
With your attitude, what's the purpose of building equipment at all? If you don't intend to "observe" things, and "predict" things from those observations, why bother building it at all?
With my attitude? If you don't intend to apply legitimate science to those observations, analyze the data quantitatively using real measurements which involve real numbers, yes those terrifyingly scary mathematical numbers, indeed why bother? The scientists responsible for the solar research programs do apply science quantitatively. That's why.
Start here: Regarding those filaments, How light? How dark? For what durations? Which filaments, quantitatively, by what measurements, described in real numbers, are going to precede the CMEs, by how long? What quantitative measurement of light/dark difference is involved? Increasing, decreasing? By how much, in numbers? If you can't answer those
quantitative concerns, your "prediction" is just a wild guess.
It's not a personal attack, it's a statement of fact. You claimed a trained pig could predict CME's. For the sake of argument I'd even be willing to concede that point *PROVIDED* that the pig is capable of "pattern recognition".
No, I didn't claim a pig could predict CMEs, so of course your statement above is not true. I said a trained pig could recognize the difference between an image showing activity and one which is not. Although a pig's visual capabilities are different than a monkeys', a dolphin's, or a human's, if you process the image with a sharp enough contrast a pig can see the difference. And your use of derogatory nicknames when addressing me or referring to me, although apparently deemed acceptable behavior by the admins, is a personal attack.
No, that's where you're just wrong. It's a physical "trigger".
You lack the necessary qualifications to understand the concept of triggering, the sequence of cause and effect. When the wind picks up ahead of a thunderstorm, that wind does not trigger the storm. It is not the cause of the storm. So link to the documentation that supports your claim that the dark filaments you observe are triggering, causing, or initiating the CMEs, or your claim can be dismissed as another of your simple unsupported assertions.
I've shown that I can predict a CME 4+ hours before hand, inside of a three hour window, and you have not. What does that say about your qualifications?
I've showed that by using the same technique I can predict rain within a much tighter time frame and apply that prediction to a much more specific location. You see some activity and "predict" it will continue. Child's play.
It's "interesting" because there is a direct "cause/effect" relationship to those "rising dark filaments" and flares/CME's. What's also interesting is your denial of that fact.
Again I'll remind you that your qualifications to understand science have been challenged, and you have yet to demonstrate that you possess the qualifications necessary to understand the scientific concept of cause and effect. Since you are unable or unwilling to offer legitimate scientific support that the rising dark filaments cause the flares and CMEs, scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively, it would be a mistake or a lie to claim it as a fact. Consequently this is another of your claims that can be dismissed without further consideration.
).
!