CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Michael Mozina]

http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_0094.mpg

If you watch the active region that's been producing flares this week in a higher energy wavelength like 94A, you'll notice that the hot spots are still extremely active, and still quite capable of producing additional flares. It looks like that active area will remain highly active even after it rotates out of view of SDO. Unfortunately it's not as easy to observe the dark filaments in STEREO in real time, but the flares should still be very visible in STEREO for awhile.

 

[GeeMack]

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.

Okay, so you're saying the existence of the mass flow is the cause of the mass flow's existence. Got it. That's where we were on Page 1 of the thread, but you didn't seem willing to admit that observing the existence of something was your method for "predicting" its existence.

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.

So the eruption of a volcano is the cause of the lava coming out of the top. Well, duh.

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.

If you want to be understood, make yourself clear. You have stated, unequivocally, that the dark filaments you observe are the cause of CMEs. I didn't realize you meant it the same way as saying the eruption of a volcano is the cause of the lava coming out. That's what we call a tautology, Michael. I was under the impression you were trying to say something more scientific than black is black or water is wet.

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?

It's clear that you mean the mass flow is the cause of the mass flow. I think we're on the same plane, now.

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.

I haven't ignored any such thing, your repeated dishonest claim that I have notwithstanding. You claimed that the dark filaments cause CMEs. And as I've said above, I thought you were trying to communicate something more complicated than the simple tautology that eruptions send stuff outwards.

And as far as answering your questions? Why on Earth do you still believe that other people should do the work necessary to support your claims? Why on Earth do you think the burden of proof of your claims should be other people's responsibility? This is literally a grade school science concept, Michael.

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.

So when you weed out the mass flows that you observe actually becoming larger mass flows, you will be able to "predict" that they are larger mass flows with 100% accuracy. And when you see a very large eruption of a volcano you can "predict" that a lot of lava is in the process of blowing into the air. Why? Because a lot of lava blowing into the air is how we define it as a very large eruption. Duh, again.

Oh, and seeing lightning and predicting thunder is pretty much a tautology, too, because, well, they happen at virtually the same instant. Only our observation of the results of the event tend to arrive at different times. Again, I thought what you were trying to communicate was more complicated than seeing something happening and declaring that it is indeed happening. But do recall that's what many of realized you were saying on the very first page, and you've appeared to be arguing that you were saying something else.

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?

You can, as a few of us requested several times now, describe your method for making your "prediction". Describe it scientifically, objectively, and quantitatively, with real numbers and the necessary supporting math. Describe it in a way that other people can apply your method and independently, objectively reach the same conclusions as you.

You've been claiming your "method" was something you've developed, but if you're going to claim that other people's research, much of which was done well over ten years ago, is your method, then you should have mentioned that on the very first page, too. If that is the case, then it's not your method, not your discovery, not your research, and not your findings. It's something that real scientists who do real research, understand real math, and know how to go about appropriately publishing their research have already done, a long time ago.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, so you're saying the existence of the mass flow is the cause of the mass flow's existence. Got it.

No, that's another example you *INTENTIONALLY* twisting my statements to suit yourself. The mass flow *ORIGINATES* in the filament eruption process and it later becomes visible in LASCO as a flare or CME depending on the mass involved.

How do you expect to have an honest conversation when you repeatedly and intentionally refuse to accurately listen to what I said and you intentionally misrepresent my position?

This whole erupting filament conversation should have been "simple", "'easy" and everyone *SHOULD* have agreed, particularly if you've been using that technique to "predict" flares for 10 years as you're now trying to claim. Care to show me a paper that did that specifically, or are you just twisting that last paper from RC like pretzel too?

I never made any claim about being the only person using this method, or that others had not already noticed that there is a statistical link. I simply described the method *I PERSONALLY* used to predict the CMEs and flares. There's really nothing magical about it. I've never seen a paper that used those dark filaments to trace where the CME or flare would show up, but I certainly wouldn't be surprised to find that someone has already done that as well. This is a "method", not "MY PERSONAL" method and I never claimed only I could do it, in fact I agree for the sake of argument that even ANOTHER SPECIES might do it so long as they are capable of pattern recognition. Holy cow. You've done your very best to misrepresent everything that I've ever said. Proud of yourself?

 

[Michael Mozina]

So.....

Are either one of you willing to concede yet that the mass ejection process begins with the filament eruption and therefore we can 'predict' what we will see in later Lasco images? How long did you two intend to drag this out anyway, particularly if you intend to claim that others have used this technique for 10 years now? How tough can this be?

There is a direct physical link between the filament eruption and at least some of the mass ejections we observe in LASCO. PERIOD. Get over it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

OK RC how did you do?

What was your final score?

 

[GeeMack]

Proud of yourself?

I think I finally got you to admit that the dark filaments are not the cause of the CMEs any more than stuff being ejected out of a volcano is the cause of the stuff going up in the air above a volcano. I think I helped you learn what the logical fallacy of a tautology is and how your claims about predicting something exists by observing that it exists are just that. And I think I've got you to realize that you never created or developed an objective, quantitative, legitimately scientific method for making your "prediction". Of course only time will tell. Should I be proud?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I think I finally got you to admit that the dark filaments are not the cause of the CMEs any more than stuff being ejected out of a volcano is the cause of the stuff going up in the air above a volcano.

In the sense that the the EM field is the motive force, not the filament itself, yes I would agree. You should also be willing to agree that we might be able to measure a magma build up and have some idea of when and where the next eruption might occur. Yes?

I think I helped you learn what the logical fallacy of a tautology is

No, I just "learned" that you're intentionally trying to ignore the meaning of my statements and how my words can be 'twisted' by someone who's motivated to do so. Yawn.

and how your claims about predicting something exists by observing that it exists are just that.

It's not as simple as you make it sound. Not all filaments cause flares, not all flares are a result of filament eruption for that matter. The paper RC cited noted that "some" types of filament eruptions are more statistically likely to generate flares than others. There are still other (additional) "patterns" one has to recognize, not just that filament "disappeared" as in their "method" of detection.

They were specific about which conditions were more favorable than others. The only thing their "technique" was unclear about is how they determined "size' and that is probably the only way to get rid of that last 5 percent margin of error.

The rest of this nonsense is pure posturing. I'm busy at the moment.

 

[Michael Mozina]

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.

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

This SDO closeup says otherwise RC. Notice how the filament is "flowing", it's not "frozen". Notice how the filament 'lights up" at one end and not the other. Notice how it rotates like any ordinary "Birkeland current". The easiest and simplest way to "light up" a whole strand of plasma is to run (more) current through it (than it had before). That's also the easiest way to "squeeze" it into a rotating individual filament too, and the easiest way to light up a whole "end" of the filament. That's the easiest way to accelerate plasma too. Everything about this latest filament eruption points us to "current flow" including the movement of the charged particles themselves.

There's one MAJOR fallacy in your understanding of moving plasma. That "movement" is a form of "current flow' even if there are equal numbers of protons and electrons. Any stationary object (relative to the moving charged particles) can and might 'separate' that "current flow" (like the magnetosphere of the Earth) and "viola", we have consistent "current flow" from that stream of moving charged particles. You really don't fully grasp the importance of the movement of plasma relative to stationary objects (plasma too). You think of the whole thing as "neutral', when it fact it's a 'current carrying plasma from the moment it moves. That is why Alfven rejected the notion of "frozen in" magnetic lines. Nothing can be "frozen' because it's all composed of moving charged particles that form "circuits' like that dark filament. It's one big "conductor' that isolates itself from the other plasma, by its rotation and composition, and yet it can "conduct" more current from point A to point B and become "hot" as a result.

 

[GeeMack]

It's not as simple as you make it sound. Not all filaments cause flares, not all flares are a result of filament eruption for that matter. The paper RC cited noted that "some" types of filament eruptions are more statistically likely to generate flares than others. There are still other (additional) "patterns" one has to recognize, not just that filament "disappeared" as in their "method" of detection.

They were specific about which conditions were more favorable than others. The only thing their "technique" was unclear about is how they determined "size' and that is probably the only way to get rid of that last 5 percent margin of error.

Okay, so some real scientists have done some legitimate research on this subject, but contrary to what you have been asserting all through this thread, you have just been looking at pictures of existing activity and guessing the activity would continue. You don't actually have a scientific, quantitative, and objective method. So after more than 300 posts we are pretty much exactly where we were when I said this in Post #24...

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.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Okay, so some real scientists have done some legitimate research on this subject, but contrary to what you have been asserting all through this thread, you have just been looking at pictures of existing activity and guessing the activity would continue.

No, that's a gross (very gross) oversimplification of what I'm doing. I even told you *BEFORE* the filament erupted that it was likely to do so. I am in fact observing images *CAREFULLY* and yes, they're pretty pictures too.

You don't actually have a scientific, quantitative, and objective method. So after more than 300 posts we are pretty much exactly where we were when I said this in Post #24...

That is pure baloney. It's not a guess. It's "knowledge". How many human beings even know about the filament eruption/CME/flare connection anyway to start with? My whole purpose in starting this thread was to discuss how it works. For my efforts you've misrepresented everything that I've said and everything that I've done, including the fact that you're trying to sweep those *SUCCESSFUL* predictions I made under the carpet, and you've yet to duplicate that feat even once. I've done it several times now with *BOTH* kinds of flares.

What you're trying to suggest is that any form of "KNOWLEDGE" that is not mathematical in nature is UNIMPORTANT. That's exactly why your industry is in such sad shape today. I can "predict" that I will hear thunder if I see a powerful lightening bolt. I can know that the lightening bolt is dangerous to my health without knowing the math. That non mathematical bit of info could save my life. Your fixation on the maths to the exclusion of fundamental physical principles is what has gotten you into this mess in the first place.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI...

I'm waiting to see you demonstrate just how easy this is for us in real time as I have done. When might I see you predict the first C class or better flare we've seen in 12 days inside of a 48 hour window? When might I see you predict a mass flow in a lasco or cor image 5 hours in advance? So far you've made it sound oh so simple, but you've yet to demonstrate you have even *MY* qualifications to accurately predict both types of flares. It's easy to criticize. Let's see you show us how easy it is and explain how your method is so much "better" than the one I have described and used successfully on several occasions?

 

[Michael Mozina]

There's another problem with your attitude.

By your rationale, there nothing even useful in isolating key areas that we should be "watching" carefully in the first place. Lot's of useful 'knowledge' has nothing to do with math.

 

[GeeMack]

FYI...

I'm waiting to see you demonstrate just how easy this is for us in real time as I have done. When might I see you predict the first C class or better flare we've seen in 12 days inside of a 48 hour window? When might I see you predict a mass flow in a lasco or cor image 5 hours in advance? So far you've made it sound oh so simple, but you've yet to demonstrate you have even *MY* qualifications to accurately predict both types of flares. It's easy to criticize. Let's see you show us how easy it is and explain how your method is so much "better" than the one I have described and used successfully on several occasions?

I'm not making a claim about predicting stuff. You are. I mentioned this before and you ignored it, but it's not other people's responsibility to support your claim. The burden of proof of your claim does not fall on other people. That's your job. Science is not a contest. Science is not a betting pool. Science is not the guessing game that you seem to keep implying it is. Science is quantitative, mathematical, objective. Science is communicated clearly and unambiguously. This stuff is taught in grade school science, Michael, grade school science.

And I keep asking you to actually describe your scientific, objective, quantitative method for doing what you claim to be doing. And you refuse to do that. And you refuse to admit that you have no such method. That's not even grade school science. It's not science at all.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I'm not making a claim about predicting stuff. You are. I mentioned this before and you ignored it, but it's not other people's responsibility to support your claim. The burden of proof of your claim does not fall on other people. That's your job.

And that is why I sucessfully predicted an EM flare for you, the first C class or better flare in 12 days, and I did so less than an hour before it occurred (less than 30 minutes I believe). That's why I also showed everyone the images I was using and explained what I have "predicted".

Science is not a contest. Science is not a betting pool.

Ya, but if you're going to start predicting CMEs and flares in LASCO images, the odds aren't in your favor without 'knowledge'.

Science is not the guessing game that you seem to keep implying it is.

You are the only one claiming it's a 'guessing game'. I'm the only one "predicting" correctly.

Science is quantitative,

It's also QUALITATIVE and CONCEPTUAL.

mathematical,

And physical.

objective.

So are predictions and falsifications. I've given you several shots at falsifying my methods. So far that hasn't happened. Even if I eventually fail, I'm certainly beating the odds based on a "pure guess".

It's also honest, about the difficulties too. When have you discussed those?

Science is communicated clearly and unambiguously.

It also requires a clear unambiguous listener, someone without ulterior motives.

This stuff is taught in grade school science, Michael, grade school science.

Talk is cheap (and your statement is a lie). Who here in this thread was taught in grade school that filament eruptions are related to flares? Your statements are entirely ridiculous. When I see you successfully duplicate what I've done, then you can tell us how easy it is. Until then, well, it's just talk.

I have in fact describe my methods to you. You don't care. You claim it's easy and it's taught to everyone in 'grade school'. You sure are boisterous for someone who's yet to even ONCE go out on a limb, let alone two or three times. If and when I see you do something "better" than I've done, I'll believe you. Until then I simply believe you have no idea what you're talking about, you've oversimplified the process to the point of absurdity and your claims about this being grade school physics is utterly ridiculous. Put up some quantitative numbers of your own for us and let's see a "pro" in action.

 

[GeeMack]

And that is why I sucessfully predicted an EM flare for you, the first C class or better flare in 12 days, and I did so less than an hour before it occurred (less than 30 minutes I believe). That's why I also showed everyone the images I was using and explained what I have "predicted".

I did the same thing with a rainstorm in Tupelo, Mississippi. Big deal.

Ya, but if you're going to start predicting CMEs and flares in LASCO images, the odds aren't in your favor without 'knowledge'.

I'm not a meteorologist, yet I looked at a couple pictures and predicted a rainstorm in Tupelo, Mississippi, exact time and exact location. Big deal.

You are the only one claiming it's a 'guessing game'. I'm the only one "predicting" correctly.

Actually I'm not the only one calling it a guessing game. Pretty much everyone who participated in this thread, other than you of course, has agreed with that position. When the odds are 19 out of 20 of making a hit, and you don't have a scientific, quantitative, objective method for making your guesses, you're guessing. Big deal.

It's also QUALITATIVE and CONCEPTUAL.

Scientific conclusions are not qualitative and conceptual. In all the times people have asked you to provide your quantitative, scientific, objective method for making your "predictions", you've refused to provide one. Your qualitative and conceptual argument, at the exclusion of being quantitative and objective, is wholly unscientific. Imagine that.

And physical.

As opposed to magical? Sure. Big deal.

So are predictions and falsifications. I've given you several shots at falsifying my methods. So far that hasn't happened. Even if I eventually fail, I'm certainly beating the odds based on a "pure guess".

You haven't even made 20 guesses yet, and you've failed a couple of times. So your method is already failing more often than guessing should fail, given the odds.

It's also honest, about the difficulties too. When have you discussed those?

When have you? You've said sometimes you guess wrong. Difficulties? Hardly. Big deal.

It also requires a clear unambiguous listener, someone without ulterior motives.

My motives here are to get you to support your claim if you can, and to acknowledge that you are unable to support it if you can't. So far you haven't been able to support it.

Talk is cheap (and your statement is a lie). Who here in this thread was taught in grade school that filament eruptions are related to flares? Your statements are entirely ridiculous. When I see you successfully duplicate what I've done, then you can tell us how easy it is. Until then, well, it's just talk.

Your repeated desire to call me a liar without being able to show where I've lied is noted. (Or maybe you've misunderstood what I said, clearly, simply, and in plain English.) I said...

The burden of proof of your claim does not fall on other people. That's your job. Science is not a contest. Science is not a betting pool. Science is not the guessing game that you seem to keep implying it is. Science is quantitative, mathematical, objective. Science is communicated clearly and unambiguously. This stuff is taught in grade school science, Michael, grade school science.​

And that is true. At least I learned it in grade school science. Maybe kids got stupider after the 1960's, eh?

I have in fact describe my methods to you. You don't care. You claim it's easy and it's taught to everyone in 'grade school'. You sure are boisterous for someone who's yet to even ONCE go out on a limb, let alone two or three times. If and when I see you do something "better" than I've done, I'll believe you. Until then I simply believe you have no idea what you're talking about, you've oversimplified the process to the point of absurdity and your claims about this being grade school physics is utterly ridiculous. Put up some quantitative numbers of your own for us and let's see a "pro" in action.

You have either seriously misunderstood my comments again, or you are intentionally and dishonestly ignoring what I really said.

For one thing, I've mentioned many times that science is not a contest, yet your persistent argument based on challenging other people to guess as good as you is just plain nonsensical. That's a guessing game. Like I said before, it's not even grade school science. It's not science at all.

For another, what you have described is looking at some pictures and making some guesses that some existing activity will continue to exist. I've been asking to you provide a method, scientific, quantitative, and objective, that other people can apply independently and expect to achieve the same result you achieve. You have never provided any such thing.

 

[Michael Mozina]

I did the same thing with a rainstorm in Tupelo, Mississippi. Big deal.

We aren't talking about rain in Tupelo, we're talking about flares and CME's. You're stalling.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Actually I'm not the only one calling it a guessing game.

Huh?

Which part is a "guess" in your opinion?

When the odds are 19 out of 20 of making a hit, and you don't have a scientific, quantitative, objective method for making your guesses, you're guessing. Big deal.

No, I'm not guessing! Even that 19 out of 20 figure you keep tossing around like it's unimportant was *EARNED* the hard way based on very careful observation. There's no "guess" involved anymore than it's "guessing" to "guess" that thunder will follow lightning. There's a direct physical connection between them. What "guess"?

Scientific conclusions are not qualitative and conceptual.

I gave you quantified predictions, even ones that had nothing to do with dark filaments.

In all the times people have asked you to provide your quantitative, scientific, objective method for making your "predictions", you've refused to provide one. Your qualitative and conceptual argument, at the exclusion of being quantitative and objective, is wholly unscientific. Imagine that.

That's pure denial! RC even provided you with a published paper on the topic that not only discussed the filaments, it categorized them, and described the time it takes to see the mass flow from the filament eruption. What is left to chance, or are you just pissy I didn't do all the math myself for you in real time?

You haven't even made 20 guesses yet, and you've failed a couple of times.

That's a direct lie! Which prediction 'failed'?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Your repeated desire to call me a liar without being able to show where I've lied is noted.

You LIED about any failed predictions. I haven't missed a single one yet in this thread. I nailed the EM flare to within an hour. That is *WAY* better than you'll ever do. You might be able to predict rain, but you can't predict CME's. If you think otherwise, show us.

 

[GeeMack]

I said...

In all the times people have asked you to provide your quantitative, scientific, objective method for making your "predictions", you've refused to provide one.​

Whenever you're ready you may describe your method.

 

[GeeMack]

You LIED about any failed predictions. I haven't missed a single one yet in this thread. I nailed the EM flare to within an hour. That is *WAY* better than you'll ever do. You might be able to predict rain, but you can't predict CME's. If you think otherwise, show us.

You claimed to have predicted a CME when it turned out in fact, through Reality Check's research, that no CME was recorded.