CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Reality Check]

According to their paper, I have a 95 percent chance of predicting a flare from a filament eruption that is anywhere near an active region. I'll take those odds.

Wrong.
According to their paper, anyone has a 95 percent chance of predicting a flare from a filament eruption that is anywhere near an active region.. Everyone will take those odds because they are really good.

 

[Reality Check]

What guess? It's not a guess. There's a demonstrated statistical correlation between dark filament eruption and flares/CME's. That's not a guess. That's a statistical fact.

The fact is that there is a demonstrated statistical correlation between any filament eruption and flares/CME's.

You are claiming that you can predict the interval between a dark filament eruption and flares/CME's. You have not presented any evidence (an actual statistical analysis!) of a statistical correlation between dark filament eruption and flares/CME's.
Thus as far as we can see the numbers you have come up are just guesses.

What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
(First asked 12 October 2010)
To make this clearer:

• What numeric analysis have you made of the intervals between dark filament observations and any following CME?
• What numeric analysis have you made of the intervals between dark filament observations and any following flare?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong.
According to their paper, anyone has a 95 percent chance of predicting a flare from a filament eruption that is anywhere near an active region.. Everyone will take those odds because they are really good.

What exactly is your point? I never claimed to be the only human being in the world that can do it did I?

 

[Michael Mozina]

The fact is that there is a demonstrated statistical correlation between any filament eruption and flares/CME's.

Those filaments are "dark(er)" than the other plasma in all the images I'm using to predict the flare. Did you have a problem with the term "dark" for some reason?

 

[Reality Check]

It's not a guess and I have described the method in some detail now.

It is a guess until you show you analysis that gave the actual numbers.

It's what *DID* happen too RC.

It's what *DID* happen too Michael Mozina. So what?

Well, if we weren't trying to do this real time that might be useful.
...

One more time - no analysis and all you have is a guess. Hedging your guess by arbitarily increasing the interval just makes it a bigger guess.

In fact this whole conversation is a little surreal. On one hand you're telling me the connection between dark filaments and flares is already known (and spaceweather.com supports that view), yet GM is claiming there isn't a cause/effect relationship. The stats you offered show that there indeed ARE direct and high statical correlations between flares and the type of filament eruption I'm looking for.

There is nothing surreal about this. They are stats. There are lies, damned lies and statistics !

It looks like what GM means is quite clear and basic:

1. There is a statistical correlation between any filament eruption and flares/CME as shown in the literature from the last decade (or more?).
2. Correlation is not causation (this is important MM).
3. There is no accepted phyiscal mechanism (no "cause/effect relationship") between filament eruption and flares/CME, i.e. no one is sure if or how filament eruptions cause flares/CME.

This is what I am also saying so GM and I are on the same page here.

 

[GeeMack]

So why in the world are you trying to deny that filament eruption detection is a useful mechanism in CME/flare prediction?

I've never tried to deny that, your dishonesty notwithstanding. You've claimed that dark filaments cause CMEs. I keep asking you to support your claim. You have been wholly unable and/or unwilling to do that. Your argument by bold assertion has failed.

Did you see that 95 percent number thingy they came up with?

Yes. That means that any creature, or even computer, with the ability to respond to pattern recognition can guess right by accident or by luck 19 out of 20 times. It's even less interesting, less special, and less unique than I thought.

Ya, a whopping 95 percent association with the type I'm looking for!

Big deal. So you're saying you have a 19 out of 20 chance that your guess will hit. There is absolutely nothing special, unique, or interesting about it. And for you to be doing it now when a computer was doing it in 1999 makes it even less so. So what?

It's not clear to me that the overlooked anything. They did in fact find a whopping 95 percent correlation between the CME's/flares that I'm now predicting and the type of filament eruptions that I'm looking for. I fail to see how they "missed" anything. The only one that seems to have missed anything is you.

They missed the part about dark filaments causing CMEs. But you claimed they do, so when are you going to quantitatively, scientifically, and objectively demonstrate that the dark filaments are the cause of CMEs? You know, where quantitatively means expressing all your data in numbers, scientifically means applying qualified analysis to the data, and objectively means the same data can be analyzed independently by other people and they'll come to the same conclusions you've reached?

Oh, and where is that method you said you've already provided? You remember, the legitimately scientific, quantitative, objective method for making your "predictions", explained in detail including relevant calculations, real numbers, units of measurement, and everything? It's reasonable to suppose that even a 1999 computer program had an actual method. Or are you willing to finally acknowledge that your argument is just a guess like we've pretty much known all along?

 

[GeeMack]

Those filaments are "dark(er)" than the other plasma in all the images I'm using to predict the flare. Did you have a problem with the term "dark" for some reason?

"Dark" isn't quantitative. Legitimate science requires quantitative analyses. Looking at "dark" and guessing is a kid's game. It's not science.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Very cool video

http://www.spaceweather.com/
http://www.spaceweather.com/swpod2010/18oct10/filamenteruption.mpg

Spaceweather.com has an incredible closeup of the last filament eruption. The detail in the closeup images are absolutely fabulous. The dark material can be seen entering the 'hot spot' and then "heating up" in the electromagnetically active region. It's fascinating to watch IMO.

 

[Michael Mozina]

"Dark" isn't quantitative. Legitimate science requires quantitative analyses. Looking at "dark" and guessing is a kid's game. It's not science.

Except you mean when the mainstream chalks up 96 percent of the universe to "dark" stuff that is invisible, passes through walls and never shows up on Earth? Please.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I've never tried to deny that, your dishonesty notwithstanding.

There you go again immediately engaging in personal attack instead of sticking to the subject. Do you even know how to engage in civil discourse with someone you disagree with? If so, I'd love to see an example of such a discussion.

You've claimed that dark filaments cause CMEs.

No, actually I said (certainly meant) that there is a cause/effect link between dark filament eruptions and mass flows we can later observe in LASCO and COR images. The ultimate "cause" of the mass flow IMO is electrical current and charge separation.

Yes. That means that any *TRAINED* creature, or even computer, with the ability to respond to pattern recognition can guess right by accident or by luck 19 out of 20 times. It's even less interesting, less special, and less unique than I thought.

Fixed that for you. That's like saying if we recognize the signs of a hurricane, and categorize them, it's not interesting, not special and not important. What is important if not pattern recognition that produces a useful prediction about the future?

Big deal. So you're saying you have a 19 out of 20 chance that your guess will hit.

First of all it's not a *GUESS*, it's a point of LEARNED KNOWLEDGE that allows me to PREDICT future events. There's certainly nothing wrong about learning, particularly learning to predict CMEs in a timely manner.

There is absolutely nothing special, unique, or interesting about it.

Why should there be anything 'special' about a KNOWN correlation between flares and filament eruptions? A few days ago you were claiming that the paper RC cited and my methods were not even related, and not your whining because they aren't "special" enough for you. Make up your mind!

And for you to be doing it now when a computer was doing it in 1999 makes it even less so. So what?

So it's a useful method to "predict" flares. That's the whole point of the thread!

They missed the part about dark filaments causing CMEs. But you claimed they do,

Huh? I didn't see them "miss" anything, and ELECTRICITY is the actual 'cause' of the eruption IMO. They did in fact note a 95 percent correlation to the type of filament I'm looking for and flares. That's about as strong as a correlation as I could ask for considering the fact that there seems to be no size restrictions or considerations of any sort.

so when are you going to quantitatively, scientifically, and objectively demonstrate that the dark filaments are the cause of CMEs?

Let's be very clear. Electromagnetism is the "cause" of CME's GM. The mass flow from the dark filament is directly related to the mass flow we can observe later in LASCO and COR images. The dark filament are a "trigger", the "cause" (motive force) is electricity.

You know, where quantitatively means expressing all your data in numbers,

You don't even care about the numbers or that paper would be enough for you to get off your high horse and admit it's a valid technique to predicting flare activity.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is a guess until you show you analysis that gave the actual numbers.

It's not a "guess" RC, it's a statistical fact that these dark erupting filaments and flares/CME's are related, and there is satellite evidence linking them as well. There's no guess involved and the paper you cited clearly demonstrates that point. You're ignoring what your own cited paper states. I believe that paper even sites the approximate 2 hour lag between filament eruption and when it becomes visible in Lasco images.

One more time - no analysis and all you have is a guess. Hedging your guess by arbitarily increasing the interval just makes it a bigger guess.

There's no guess involved. In every single case there was an erupting filament involved or an increasingly active area that was responsible for the emission. I simply pointed these items out as the process was happening or just prior to the point of an EM flare. In no way did I "guess" except for the EXACT time that the material might be seen in LASCO, and the exact time we might see some stability return to the active region. I already explained why that is the case and it's directly related to the fact we're doing this real time, I can't sit around all day and watch solar movies 24/7, and there's no good reason to try to pin it down any further. All I"m doing is pointing out the cause/effect links between filament eruption and later observations of mass flows in LASCO and COR.

There is nothing surreal about this. They are stats. There are lies, damned lies and statistics !

What are you saying? Are you claiming that those authors you cited lied when they noted a ninety five percent correlation between erupting filaments around active regions and flares?

It looks like what GM means is quite clear and basic:

[*]There is a statistical correlation between any filament eruption and flares/CME as shown in the literature from the last decade (or more?).

Care to get him to say that? I've been trying to get *SOME* kind of agreement out of him on this issue for some time now. All I get is a run around and more personal insults.

[*]Correlation is not causation (this is important MM).

Birkeland explained the actual physical "cause" of particle mass emissions for you. I'm simply noting that mass flows that originate in dark filament eruptions continue their way outward from the sun and show up in LASCO and COR images.

There is no accepted phyiscal mechanism (no "cause/effect relationship") between filament eruption and flares/CME,

Well, that's only because you guys and gals refuse to embrace an electric sun concept. That's hardly my fault.

i.e. no one is sure if or how filament eruptions cause flares/CME.

Well, if you watch the movie of that last filament eruption, you can watch the material "light up" as the current flows through it.

This is what I am also saying so GM and I are on the same page here.

Actually RC, AFAIK, we *ALL* agree that dark filaments are in fact triggers of mass ejections. You two just seem to be dragging your feet, and expecting me personally to demonstrate it to you even *AFTER* you've provided an excellent link that already showed a 95 percent correlation. What's the point of all this foot dragging?

 

[Reality Check]

Where in Birkeland's work does he describe the mechanisms behind CME

It's not a "guess" RC, it's a statistical fact that these dark erupting filaments and flares/CME's are related, and there is satellite evidence linking them as well. There's no guess involved and the paper you cited clearly demonstrates that point. You're ignoring what your own cited paper states. I believe that paper even sites the approximate 2 hour lag between filament eruption and when it becomes visible in Lasco images.

It is a guess until you show that it is not.
It's a statistical fact that these erupting filaments and flares/CME's are correlated, and there is satellite evidence linking them as well. There's no guess involved and the paper I cited clearly demonstrates that point. I am not ignoring what my own cited paper states. I know that paper even cites the approximate 2 hour lag between filament eruption CME and when it becomes visible in field of view (FOV) of the LASCO images.

There's no guess involved.

There is a guess involved until you show that it is not involved by showing how you worked out the actual numbers.

What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
(First asked 12 October 2010)


To make this clearer:

• What numeric analysis have you made of the intervals between dark filament observations and any following CME?
• What numeric analysis have you made of the intervals between dark filament observations and any following flare?

...
What are you saying? Are you claiming that those authors you cited lied when they noted a ninety five percent correlation between erupting filaments around active regions and flares?

That is what they stated. Read the paper.

Care to get him to say that?

He will if he want to. He will not if he does not want to.

Micheal Mozina
First asked 19 October 2010

Birkeland explained the actual physical "cause" of particle mass emissions for you.

And now we have your Birkeland obesssion yet again so we shall we add this to your list of Birkeland misrepresentations and lies?

Michael Mozina's delusions about Birkeland's work
​

Where in Birkeland's work does he describe the mechanisms behind your "particle mass emissions" and are these CME or flares.

In addition how did Birkland know about CME in 1913? My impression is that CME were discoved in the era os spaceborne instruments.

But the first question may be covered by

MM - Just what are Birkeland's cathode-ray pencils in modern terms
First asked 28 December 2009
​

(except that flares and CME are not electron rays)

Well, that's only because you guys and gals refuse to embrace an electric sun concept. That's hardly my fault.

That is only because the electric sun crank idea is total bunk that only people ignorant of basic physics believe in.
That is definitely not your fault unless you believe in the electric sun idea.


FYI: Since you seem to remain ignorant of what an electric discharge is: Electric discharge

• Note the role that the breakdown of a dielectric medium plays.
• Note that a plasma is a conducting medium.

Try reading and understanding the many posts that have explained this simple physics to you in other threads, e.g.

An electrical discharge requires that a conducting path is created for the discharge to follow. If the medium is always conducting then you can never get an electrical discharge
You can get an electrical current as in solar flares and coronal loops. That is essentially what you have stated but backed up by actual science

Well, if you watch the movie of that last filament eruption, you can watch the material "light up" as the current flows through it.

Some plasma gets hotter. Maybe it is because there is a current flowing through it. Maybe a magnetic field is squeezing it.
So what?
High school science students know that a current is not an electrical discharge.

Actually RC, AFAIK, we *ALL* agree that dark filaments are in fact triggers of mass ejections. You two just seem to be dragging your feet, and expecting me personally to demonstrate it to you even *AFTER* you've provided an excellent link that already showed a 95 percent correlation. What's the point of all this foot dragging?

Actually MM, my position is clear and I do not at *ALL* agree that dark filaments are triggers of CME. I agree that

• the paper states that filament eruptions (not dark filaments) have a 95% correlation with flares. So if any filament (including a dark filament) erupts then 95% of the time there will be a flare in the same area.

One more time to be clear: The correlation is between the eruption of the filament and a flare. It is not between the existence of a filament (of any color) and a flare.


Thus

1. There is a statistical correlation between any filament eruption and flares/CME as shown in the literature from the last decade (or more?).
2. Correlation is not causation (this is important MM).
3. There is no accepted phyiscal mechanism (no "cause/effect relationship") between filament eruption and flares/CME, i.e. no one is sure if or how filament eruptions cause flares/CME.

GM and I both know that the paper states that there is a 95% correlation between filament eruptions in active regions and flares.
GM and I both know that the paper does not mention dark filaments.

On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections by Ju Jing , Vasyl B. Yurchyshyn , Guo Yang , Yan Xu , and Haimin Wang.

 

[Reality Check]

Just to emphasis that there is nothing special about dark filaments, lets do a wiki:
Solar prominence

When a prominence is viewed from a different perspective so that it is against the sun instead of against space, it appears darker than the surrounding background. This formation is instead called a solar filament.[1] It is possible for a projection to be both a filament and a prominence.[2] Flocculi (plural of flocculus) is another term for these filaments, and dark flocculi typically describes the appearance of solar prominences when viewed against the solar disk in certain wavelengths.

IOW: it is just the appearance of the filament that is different.

 

[Reality Check]

Filament Eruptions and the Impulsive Phase of Solar Flares. (1998)

We examine the observed development of filament eruptions in the impulsive phase of flares for evidence of how the eruption is driven. A possibility sometimes adopted as working hypothesis is that the filament eruption and accompanying coronal mass ejection are consequences of energy release in the flare impulsive phase; they are taken to be ejecta in the explosion resulting from the pressure pulse from plasma heating in the flare. Evidence against this view is from four flares in which, in H alpha movies, a filament eruption was observed during the flare impulsive phase defined by the E = approx. 30 keV hard X-ray emission observed with the U. of Calif. at Berkely detector on the ISEE 3 spacecraft. In each case we find that: 1) filament eruption began before onset of the impulsive phase; 2) eruptive motion is consistent with a smooth evolution through the impulsive phase, accelerating, but showing no new acceleration attributable to the impulsive phase; 3) brightening of the H alpha flare ribbons in the impulsive phase occurring in compact areas is much smaller than the overall span of the erupting filament; and 4) the observed projected speed is on the order of 100 km/s at the onset of the impulsive phase. These characteristics indicate that filament eruption is not driven by flare plasma pressure, but instead marks an eruption of magnetic field driven by a global MHD instability of the field configuration in the flare region. It appears that filament eruption and impulsive energy release are coordinated and driven by a common cause, the instability of the whole field configuration. A new mode of energy release, that of the impulsive phase, may be initiated when the eruptive motion surpasses some speed limit of order 100 km/s.

 

[GeeMack]

You've claimed that dark filaments cause CMEs.

No, actually I said (certainly meant) that there is a cause/effect link between dark filament eruptions and mass flows we can later observe in LASCO and COR images. The ultimate "cause" of the mass flow IMO is electrical current and charge separation.

Okay, let's get this out of the way first. Michael, your denial of claiming that the dark filaments cause CMEs is a flat out lie. There is no other way to describe how you've assembled your argument here. You have claimed regularly, adamantly, vehemently, angrily, and with certainty that the dark filaments cause CMEs. And now you are dishonestly denying that you've made that claim. I'll also note that in assembling this argument-by-lie, you continue to state there is a cause and effect link.

These are your exact words...

If I hadn't told you what the "trigger" was, and offered you a legitimate scientific means of detecting it, that might not sound so absolutely ridiculous. Not only are the odds not in my favor to take a "wild guess", I specifically cited the images I used to identify the process in motion.

No, I recognized a clear pattern that relates to "cause/effect" relationships of CME's. That pattern is something I've seen before and one that I recognize as a "trigger" of CME's. I isolated the dark filament a different way, but the 'change over time' of the filament was the "observation" that led to the 'prediction" of the CME. At the moment I 'predicted" it, the CME hadn't even "happened" yet since the CME actually occurs once the material in that thread reaches a high enough point in the atmosphere to "explode". The filament at the time was well defined and well constrained to a very small location.

No, that's where you're just wrong. It's a physical "trigger".

It's right where the dark filament was RC. I showed you where to find it in the original 211 and 335A images that I posted. That dark filament is the *CAUSE* of the eruption and that was the "key observation' that led to my prediction. The filament had not yet reached the point of 'explosion' at that point, but it had started moving away from the surface at an increasing rate. That was my "clue".

No, I recognized a clear pattern that relates to "cause/effect" relationships of CME's. That pattern is something I've seen before and one that I recognize as a "trigger" of CME's. I isolated the dark filament a different way, but the 'change over time' of the filament was the "observation" that led to the 'prediction" of the CME. At the moment I 'predicted" it, the CME hadn't even "happened" yet since the CME actually occurs once the material in that thread reaches a high enough point in the atmosphere to "explode". The filament at the time was well defined and well constrained to a very small location.

My intent is to do just that over the next several months and years in this thread. I intend to "predict" the CME events that we will see in LASCO/COR images based upon the upward movements of those dark filaments. There is a direct cause/effect link between these dark ribbons and CME's.

Your claim is that they are the trigger, that they cause the CMEs. And again I'll remind you that after being asked many times to support that claim, you have been wholly unable to do that.

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.

Sorry, but I can't rush the sun. It works on it's own timing. I can only tell you when thing are happening. 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.

Then even after your untruthful denial that you've made that claim, you make that exact same claim again!...

Actually RC, AFAIK, we *ALL* agree that dark filaments are in fact triggers of mass ejections.

And you've attempted to substantiate your argument by insultingly and dishonestly attributing agreement with the claim to other people who not only have not agreed, but who have been asking you for hundreds of posts now to scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively support your claim.

So here's where we are after almost 300 posts...

You've made two plain and unambiguous claims. First, you claim that the dark filaments cause CMEs. Second, you claim to have a method for "predicting" CMEs, which apparently has something to do with observing filaments then guessing they might precede more activity. You have been asked repeatedly to support those two claims in a legitimately scientific way. You have been wholly unable to do that... period.

Certainly the second claim, that you have a method for predicting solar activity by observing solar activity, seems to have been explained, but not by you. Research appears to support the idea that certain filament activity precedes other more vigorous activity somewhere in the neighborhood of 95% of the time. So observing filament activity and predicting additional solar activity seems to be as easy as watching a dog lift his leg by a tree and "predicting" that he might pee.

You're guessing, Michael. And guessing correctly is as difficult as shuffling a deck of cards, claiming to "predict" that you'll cut to a card that isn't a black king, then succeeding. Big deal. So what? There is nothing interesting, unique, or special about it.

As for supporting the first claim, that dark filaments cause CMEs, you still haven't offered anything but arguments from incredulity and ignorance, and bald unqualified assertion.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, let's get this out of the way first. Michael, your denial of claiming that the dark filaments cause CMEs is a flat out lie.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

The *MASS FLOWS* seen in CME's typically begin as a filament eruption GM. The *CAUSE* of the "mass flow" we observe in LASCO/COR is directly *CAUSED BY* the movement of mass from the filament eruption. There is a direct *CAUSE/EFFECT* link between them called "atoms/plasma". Once those plasma particles are accelerated away from the sun, they show up in LASCO. There's a direct cause/effect connection between the acceleration of mass in the filament and the mass we observe in CME's.

The motive force however is electromagnetic in nature and that's *ALWAYS* been the case. I've not deviated from that position, not now, not ever. Your suggestion to the contrary is a lie.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Just to emphasis that there is nothing special about dark filaments, lets do a wiki:
Solar prominence

IOW: it is just the appearance of the filament that is different.

The only thing "special' about them RC is that they are "dark" and they "erupt" from time to time, spewing mass into the solar system as they do. I really don't grasp your aversion to the term "dark". IMO you're fixated on what amounts to trivia and you're ignoring that there's a physical, mechanical connection between the movement of mass in the erupting filament and the movements of mass we observe in LASCO, 95 percent of the time it occurs near an active region. That's not an accident, there is a physical acceleration process taking place in the erupting filament that shows up as mass flow in Lasco/COR. It's really that simple.

 

[Michael Mozina]

It is a guess until you show that it is not.

I have done so twice now, and I'll continue to do it every single time I see it happen.

It's a statistical fact that these erupting filaments and flares/CME's are correlated, and there is satellite evidence linking them as well. There's no guess involved and the paper I cited clearly demonstrates that point.

Ok, at least we agree on that much.

I am not ignoring what my own cited paper states. I know that paper even cites the approximate 2 hour lag between filament eruption CME and when it becomes visible in field of view (FOV) of the LASCO images.

So why do I have to do that same math for you when it's already been done and I agree with the "experts" on the time lag? Notice a pattern of foot dragging?

There is a guess involved until you show that it is not involved by showing how you worked out the actual numbers.

Since when was it necessary for me personally to replicate the math of a scientifically studied and published fact for it to be "true"? Your whole argument seems to be that if I don't personally bark the math for you on command, it must not be true. Does that apply to GR theory too? QM? Since when was scientific fact dependent upon me personally in any way?

I think before I bother with responding to the rest of your post, you need to explain why you believe that I personally am required to explain all the math of GR for GR to be "correct"? I don't follow your logic of why it's necessary for me personally to bark math for you on command for anything I say to be "'true". Your whole argument seems to be based upon a logical fallacy.

 

[GeeMack]

Your whole debate style has nothing to do with science or scientific fact, [...]

Your personal attack is noted.

[...] it's "personal attack, character assassination, personal attack, lather rinse repeat."

And the irony of your attack being an attempt to claim my catching you in a lie is itself a personal attack hasn't gone unnoticed.

The *MASS FLOWS* seen in CME's typically begins as a filament eruption GM. The *CAUSE* of the "mass flow" we observe in LASCO/COR is directly *CAUSED BY* the movement of mass from the filament eruption. There is a direct *CAUSE/EFFECT* link between them called "atoms/plasma". Once those plasma particles are accelerated away from the sun, they show up in LASCO. There's a direct cause/effect connection between the acceleration of mass in the filament and the mass we observe in CME's.

The cause is caused by? Huh? That is, by definition, gibberish. But it looks like you might be acknowledging that you've been wrong in claiming that the dark filaments cause CMEs, or at least wrong in saying you can support the claim. Your acknowledgement of that would move the conversation forward and would be a good thing.

The motive force however is electromagnetic in nature and that's *ALWAYS* been the case. I've not deviated from that position, not now, not ever. Your suggestion to the contrary is a lie.

My suggestion to the contrary of what, that you have or have not deviated from a particular position? Again your comment is unintelligible. If I had to try to decipher it I would say it looks like you're making an attempt to call me a liar, but you aren't able to specify any particular place where I've lied.

That aside, let's try to keep up with where we are. As far as one of your claims, it is entirely unclear whether you're still claiming that the dark filaments you observe cause CMEs. As far as the other, you haven't even begun to scientifically address the question about your method for "predicting" CMEs. It seems, based on the fact that you aren't able to describe a particular method, that your "predictions" are simply guesses. And as I mentioned before, guessing correctly in this case is as difficult as shuffling a deck of cards, claiming to "predict" that you'll cut to a card that is not a black king, then succeeding. So what? There is nothing unique, interesting, or special about that.

 

[Michael Mozina]

And the irony of your attack being an attempt to claim my catching you in a lie is itself a personal attack hasn't gone unnoticed.

Your claim is a lie. My position on the "cause" of all particle acceleration from the sun has never changed. The mass flow seen in Lasco is *CAUSED BY* the the mass flow seen in the dark filament eruption. There's a direct cause/effect relationship between the particle flow seen in LASCO and the eruption of that filament. In fact the mass flow BEGINS with that filament eruption.

The cause is caused by? Huh? That is, by definition, gibberish. But it looks like you might be acknowledging that you've been wrong in claiming that the dark filaments cause CMEs, or at least wrong in saying you can support the claim.

I am not wrong. The mass flows of CME's that we observe in Lasco are in fact "caused by" that dark filament eruption. There's no way around that *FACT* GM. The particle acceleration is electromagnetic in origin, but the CAUSE of the mass flow of the CME is that filament eruption.

Your acknowledgement of that would move the conversation forward and would be a good thing.

A good thing would be for you to stop intentionally trying to twist my statements like a pretzel and for you to actually *ATTEMPT TO UNDERSTAND* what I'm saying. As long as you do the former, the conversation is never going to move forward.

That aside, let's try to keep up with where we are. As far as one of your claims, it is entirely unclear whether you're still claiming that the dark filaments you observe cause CMEs.

That dark filament eruption is the CAUSE of the mass flow seen in Lasco. The mass flow *BEGINS* with that dark filament eruption. The filament eruption is the CAUSE of the mass flow we observe in LASCO. Is that somehow unclear to you?

As far as the other, you haven't even begun to scientifically address the question about your method for "predicting" CMEs.

This is not a true statement. I have certainly TRIED to explain it to you. You've certainly done everything in your power to not acknowledge my statements, and to in fact ignore them outright. You won't answer any direct questions, and your sole motive seems to be to "argue" rather than to "discuss' the topic of CME's and CME prediction. We're already 8 pages or so into the thread and you're still ignoring the fact that we can "predict" what we will observe in LASCO by tracing filament eruptions in 193A or H-Alpha for that matter. You've consistently ignored the fact that the acceleration of matter *BEGINS* in that dark filament eruption.

It seems, based on the fact that you aren't able to describe a particular method, that your "predictions" are simply guesses.

No, it's not a "guess". It's a statistical fact that the filaments I'm looking for create CME's 95 percent of the time. All I have to do is weed out the small mass flows from the larger mass flows and it's no problem reaching 100 percent. The mass flows *START* in the filament eruption so there's no way to ignore the fact that any outbound mass flow is going to show up in LASCO. It's the same as 'seeing' lighting and "predicting" thunder.

And as I mentioned before, guessing correctly in this case is as difficult as shuffling a deck of cards, claiming to "predict" that you'll cut to a card that is not a black king, then succeeding. So what? There is nothing unique, interesting, or special about that.

There's no guess involved. There is a physical, mechanical (particle) connection between the mass flows we observe in the filament eruption and many of the mass flows seen in LASCO observations of CME's and flares. The mass flows *ORIGINATE* in the filament eruption. The filament eruption is the CAUSE of the mass flows we observe in LASCO CME images.

How much clearer can I make it?