I have already demonstrated it is so once, [...]
No, you have not. You have seen what might be a correlation, but you have not demonstrated in any way that there is a causal relationship. Your claim is that the dark filaments cause the CMEs. In light of the fact that you have been unable to support that claim, are you now prepared to abandon it?
[...] and I will do so many more times of the next few weeks and months.
You can only do something more times after you have done it at least once. So far you haven't demonstrated even once that your claim about dark filaments causing CMEs is true. You might want to start there.
I haven't "refused" anything. You however have refused to answer a direct question that *could* lead to areas of agreement between us. Your only motive in not doing so could only be related to your A) lack of knowledge (as in you disagree), or B) your desire to keep the conversation unnecessarily unprofessional for as long as possible. Which is it?
My motive is to somehow or other get you to demonstrate the truth of your claim that the dark filaments trigger the CMEs. Or alternatively to get your acknowledgment that you are unable to support that claim so this discussion can move forward.
What are you talking about? I already *DEMONSTRATED* it once in "real time", and I will do so many more times in this thread. RC even already provided us with a paper that shows a very strong correlation between erupting filaments and CME's. Spaceweather.com certainly has it's eye on those dark filaments and has suggested the could "erupt", so the 'experts' seem to understand that connection too.
First, no, you haven't demonstrated it once in real time or otherwise. You've claimed it. Claiming it doesn't make it true. And second, it is not true that the reference that Reality Check offered supports your claim that the dark filaments cause the CMEs.
It's the material in the dark filament that turns into the CME when it 'erupts'.
So?
That's not so. I used that method to successfully predict a CME. I showed you how the one flare was directed *AT* that rising filament we could see in 193A high cadence images too in one of the flares I did post mortem on a while back. You're simply ignoring what I've posted.
And again you're claiming to have applied a "method", yet having been asked many, many times to provide that method, you haven't. So provide your legitimately scientific, quantitative, objective method for making your "predictions". Explain it here, in detail, with the relevant math, numbers, units of measurement, and everything. We've been waiting for over 200 posts and we're well into the seventh page of this thread with no such method yet described.
Sorry, but I can't rush the sun. It works on it's own timing. I can only tell you when thing are happening.
Indeed. You can tell when things are happening by using the simple method of looking at an image of existing activity and stating that the activity exists. And again I'll ask why you think there's anything special, unique, or interesting about that.
Once we see another filament erupt, I'll tell you when you'll see them show up in Lasco/Cor images. There's certainly a cause/effect link between those rising filaments (not all of them do that by the way) and CME's. Even that paper assumes as much.
No, that paper does not assume so.
No, you make it clear in every post. In every post you include personal attack, including this one which questions my "honesty". You're not interested in a scientific conversation, you're interested in a verbal fight. If you were interested in an honest scientific conversation, you would have just answer my question directly, and you would have done so the first time I asked.
Your continued attempt at making an argument by dishonestly misrepresenting my position is noted.
!
!