CME's, active regions and high energy flares

Michael Mozina said:
No, the filament eruption is definitely the source of the CME.
Click to expand...


Okay, then your claim is that the dark filaments do cause CMEs? You can't have it both ways. Do you still claim that the dark filaments cause CMEs, or are you now rescinding your claim?
 
GeeMack said:
Okay, then your claim is that the dark filaments do cause CMEs? You can't have it both ways. Do you still claim that the dark filaments cause CMEs, or are you now rescinding your claim?
Click to expand...

Exactly which part of "The mass ejection process that we observe in Lasco originates with the filament eruption we observe in 193A a few hours earlier in SDO." do you not understand?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Exactly which part of "The mass ejection process that we observe in Lasco originates with the filament eruption we observe in 193A a few hours earlier in SDO." do you not understand?
Click to expand...


My question is this: Do you still claim that the dark filaments cause CMEs, or are you now rescinding your claim? I can't imagine why this is so difficult for you to answer. You've made a very specific, unambiguous claim. I quoted many of your posts where you made the claim. You seem to have admitted that you were wrong and that you can't support that claim, but when I ask you to clarify, you seem to deny that you've rescinded the claim. So...

Do you still claim that the dark filaments cause CMEs, or are you now rescinding your claim?

But maybe it would be simpler for you to understand if I phrased it this way...

Yes or no, do you still claim that the dark filaments cause CMEs?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Dark filament *ERUPTIONS* cause CME's. We already had this conversation.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6458905&postcount=307
Click to expand...


Your claim was that the dark filaments cause CMEs, and now you've rescinded that claim.

That leaves the other claim you've made, clearly and unambiguously. You claimed to have a method, scientific, quantitative, and objective, that you applied to "predict" CMEs before they occur. Are you prepared to describe that method, not the one from the research which Reality Check posted, but the method you claimed to be using before you were even aware of that paper? Or are you going to rescind that claim, too?
 
GeeMack said:
Your claim was that the dark filaments cause CMEs, and now you've rescinded that claim.
Click to expand...

No, you are not listening. My claim is that dark filament *ERUPTIONS* cause some types of CME's and I have NOT EVER rescinded that claim or deviated from that position. There is a direct particle physical link between the mass and directional flow of the erupting dark filament, and the mass ejections that we observe a few hours later in LASCO and COR images.
 
Michael Mozina said:
No, you are not listening. My claim is that dark filament *ERUPTIONS* cause some types of CME's and I have NOT EVER rescinded that claim or deviated from that position. There is a direct particle physical link between the mass and directional flow of the erupting dark filament, and the mass ejections that we observe a few hours later in LASCO and COR images.
Click to expand...


Yes, we understand that. When the eruption occurs there is an eruption. Like I've explained, that's a tautology like saying water is wet or when there isn't any light it's dark. So what? Big deal.

You claimed the dark filaments caused the CMEs, by way of several flat out statements that I quoted in Post #295. That claim, your claim that the dark filaments cause/trigger CMEs, that's the claim you've rescinded. That is the claim you made and have now abandoned. That is the claim you made that we can now leave behind.

So that brings us to the other claim you've made, that you have a method, scientific, quantitative, and objective, which you applied to "predict" CMEs before they occur. Are you prepared to describe that method? Again, not the one from the research which Reality Check posted, but the method you claimed to be using before you were even aware of that paper? Or are you going to rescind that claim, too?
 
GeeMack said:
Yes, we understand that. When the eruption occurs there is an eruption. Like I've explained, that's a tautology like saying water is wet or when there isn't any light it's dark. So what? Big deal.
Click to expand...

If and when you demonstrate it's not a big deal, I'll believe you. I guarantee you that if and when you get around to duplicating any of my predictions, you'll use exactly the same methods I used. Knowledge is power.

You claimed the dark filaments caused the CMEs, by way of several flat out statements that I quoted in Post #295. That claim, your claim that the dark filaments cause/trigger CMEs, that's the claim you've rescinded. That is the claim you made and have now abandoned. That is the claim you made that we can now leave behind.

So that brings us to the other claim you've made, that you have a method, scientific, quantitative, and objective, which you applied to "predict" CMEs before they occur. Are you prepared to describe that method? Again, not the one from the research which Reality Check posted, but the method you claimed to be using before you were even aware of that paper? Or are you going to rescind that claim, too?
Click to expand...

It is *IMPOSSIBLE* for you to not know what I believe to be the motive force behind *ALL* particle emissions from the sun. You could NEVER have accidentally been confused on that issue. If there ever was any confusion on your part due to sloppy verbiage on my part, I've spent post after post after post explaining to you that that dark filament *ERUPTIONS* are the "cause" of some types of CME's. You could not possibly be confused on this issue at this point. We've discussed it to death. The only reason you're harping on it *STILL* is some desire on your part to "win" something. You won't "win" anything until you can actually demonstrate your prowess by making a few of your own predictions. Since you can't and won't do that, we're just going around in circles.

You aren't fooling anyone.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
If and when you demonstrate it's not a big deal, I'll believe you.
Click to expand...


Let me make this clear: Your claim that an eruption is an eruption, or that the beginnings of an eruption may continue to be an eruption, is like saying the water coming down from the sky is rain. It's not a big deal for you to say water is wet or when there's no light it's dark. Apparently you feel differently, so let me ask you, do you feel it's a big deal for someone to claim water is wet, to claim that when there's no light it's dark? Is it a big deal to make that claim? And please, just answer the question without the attempted distractions and evasions, okay?

I guarantee you that if and when you get around to duplicating any of my predictions, you'll use exactly the same methods I used. Knowledge is power.
Click to expand...


You appear to have no method other than guessing. Or at least you haven't been able to describe any method up to this point, several hundred posts into this thread and several dozen requests for you to describe your method.

It is *IMPOSSIBLE* for you to not know what I believe to be the motive force behind *ALL* particle emissions from the sun. You could NEVER have accidentally been confused on that issue. If there ever was any confusion on your part due to sloppy verbiage on my part, I've spent post after post after post explaining to you that that dark filament *ERUPTIONS* are the "cause" of some types of CME's. You could not possibly be confused on this issue at this point. We've discussed it to death. The only reason you're harping on it *STILL* is some desire on your part to "win" something. You won't "win" anything until you can actually demonstrate your prowess by making a few of your own predictions. Since you can't and won't do that, we're just going around in circles.
Click to expand...


Okay, so you're admitting your claim was wrong, that because of sloppy verbiage you actually meant to make a different claim, over and over in all those posts where you appeared to claim that the dark filaments cause CMEs. Good that we can get that issue behind us.

You aren't fooling anyone.
Click to expand...


Good, because I'm not trying to fool anyone about anything. My position should be pretty darn clear. You've made some unambiguous claims, and I'm asking you to either support those claims or to rescind those claims. Regarding the claim about dark filaments causing CMEs, you have rescinded that claim by admitting that you were attempting to make a different claim and your verbiage was sloppy. So...

Moving on to the other claim, the claim that you made about having a scientific, quantitative, objective method for "predicting" CMEs. Describe that method, showing how you quantitatively record and analyze the data. Explain it scientifically without resorting to arguments from ignorance and incredulity or other logical fallacies. Make your explanation as detailed as possible, and make it objective so that other people can independently apply your method and reach the same conclusions you've reached.

And as Reality Check has already mentioned, acknowledging that you are unable to support that claim and that you have no such method is an acceptable response.
 
GeeMack said:
Let me make this clear: Your claim that an eruption is an eruption, or that the beginnings of an eruption may continue to be an eruption, is like saying the water coming down from the sky is rain.
Click to expand...

Not all dark filaments "erupt". You keep talking about how easy it is GM, but where is your 'successful prediction' to demonstrate that claim? Talk is cheap. Show us how it's done.
 
GeeMack said:
You appear to have no method other than guessing.
Click to expand...

That is a bald faced lie just like your claim about a failed prediction. I have successfully predicted a series of large EM flares within a 20 minute window of the big flare after 12 days of not even a single c class flare. I've also successfully predicted two dark filament eruption flares. You've predicted neither type of CME/flare. There was no "guess" involved. In fact you can't even make up your mind if it's a guess or an observation since half the time you accuse me of simply seeing rain, and the other half you're claiming it's a guess. Make up your mind!

Okay, so you're admitting your claim was wrong, that because of sloppy verbiage you actually meant to make a different claim, over and over in all those posts where you appeared to claim that the dark filaments cause CMEs. Good that we can get that issue behind us.
Click to expand...

Another lie. You knew all along what the motive force was and that this is a "triggering" issue. The *CAUSE* of the mass flow in the CME is the *eruption* of the dark filament.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Not all dark filaments "erupt". You keep talking about how easy it is GM, but where is your 'successful prediction' to demonstrate that claim? Talk is cheap. Show us how it's done.
Click to expand...


It is not my responsibility to support your claim. I learned this simple concept in grade school science class, probably in about fifth grade when I was around eleven years old. The burden of proof rests on the person making the claim. Any kid who gets out of elementary school with decent grades should know this. Consider your qualifications to understand this simple scientific concept challenged. Please demonstrate that you are so qualified.

And to address your point directly, the filaments that erupt do indeed erupt. You are correct in that claim. And I agree that the filaments that erupt are erupting. I think we all agree. It's a tautology, which means that by the nature of it being true, it's true. And water is wet, and when there's no light it's dark. So what?
 
Michael Mozina said:
GeeMack said:
You appear to have no method other than guessing.
Click to expand...

That is a bald faced lie [...]
Click to expand...


I said you appear to have no method other than guessing. That is my considered opinion based on many requests for you to describe your method, and your subsequent unwillingness and/or inability to present one. Being a well founded opinion, of course it is not a lie. So your statement that it is a lie is incorrect.

[...] just like your claim about a failed prediction. I have successfully predicted a series of large EM flares within a 20 minute window of the big flare after 12 days of not even a single c class flare. I've also successfully predicted two dark filament eruption flares.
Click to expand...


Yet you haven't presented an argument to support your claim that you've used any sort of scientific, quantitative, objective method for making your "predictions". Given you have a 19 out of 20 shot at guessing correctly, and that the results of your "predictions" are no better than guessing, and you haven't described any actual scientific method for making your "predictions", it can be reasonably surmised that your results came from guessing.

You've predicted neither type of CME/flare.
Click to expand...


So? I haven't made a claim, either. I don't have a horse in this race, Michael. My whole purpose here is, as a good skeptic, to get you to support your claims or to retract them. You seem unwilling to do either.

There was no "guess" involved. In fact you can't even make up your mind if it's a guess or an observation since half the time you accuse me of simply seeing rain, and the other half you're claiming it's a guess. Make up your mind!
Click to expand...


Well it looks like a combination of tautologies, stating that something which exists, exists, and guesses that some observed activity will continue to be activity. I see nothing particularly special, unique, or interesting in that. One is a logical fallacy, and the other is looking at a picture and making a guess.

Another lie.
Click to expand...


Although your failed effort is noted, that isn't another lie, for one thing because there wasn't a first one. But more importantly it's not a lie because it's true you were claiming that the dark filaments cause CMEs, at least I'd guess nearly all intelligent English speaking adults reading your posts would have interpreted it that way. I posted a list of quotes where you clearly stated that claim.

You knew all along what the motive force was and that this is a "triggering" issue. The *CAUSE* of the mass flow in the CME is the *eruption* of the dark filament.
Click to expand...


What I did know all along, based on the actual words you wrote several times, was that you were unambiguously claiming that the dark filaments cause CMEs. See your quotes I listed in Post #295.

And what I know now is that you're no longer claiming that the dark filaments cause CMEs, but that the cause of mass flow is the eruption, which pretty much definitively means the event which caused the mass to flow. And water is wet, and where there's no light it's dark.

I'm not sure why you continue to avoid this issue (well, I do have a pretty good idea), but let's move on to it, shall we? How about that claim of yours about having an objective, scientific, quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs? You may describe that any time. And as Reality Check said, if you don't have such a method, you may admit that, too.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Ok, just out of morbid curiosity, how *EXACTLY* do you figure the software picked out the filaments without relying upon the fact they are 'dark'?
Click to expand...
They detected disappearing filaments *EXACTLY* as described in the paper. Read On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections.
Notice that no point do they mention dark filaments.
BTW - filaments that are not dark are visible in solar images :jaw-dropp!

Michael Mozina said:
Sure, but those types of "bright" flares occur at a "maximum load" point and it's entirely different prediction process.
...snipped...
Click to expand...
You have not shown any evidence of any "prediction process" other than guessing.

Michael Mozina said:
Sure, and that's the difference between a flare and a non event.
...
Click to expand...
That has nothing to do ith what I said.
The fact that many filaments vanish and then there is a flare is not "special". It is what these filaments do.

Michael Mozina said:
Exactly. What we're talking about now is how that EM motive force manifests itself in the atmosphere and exactly which processes produce flares and CME's. We all agree that the EM field is doing the plasma acceleration, but detecting where and how isn't trivial or easy.
Click to expand...
A nitpick: You are talking about "the" EM field. There is no such thing. There is the collapse of a magnetic field which releases energy to do the plasma acceleration. There is an associated elecric field.

Michael Mozina said:
You can trace the mass flow through the satellites now RC.
Click to expand...
No you cannot MM.
There is no such trace. The mass of the erupting filament is not followed continuously from the point of eruption to where it is imaged by LASCO.
There are two separate observations.

Michael Mozina said:
You simply cannot ignore that 95 percent correlation between active region filament eruptions and flares.
...snipped correlation = causation fallacy...
Click to expand...
I am not ignoring it. You are ignoring that fact that correlation does not always mean causation.
 
GeeMack said:
It is not my responsibility to support your claim.
Click to expand...

I didn't ask you to do so. I asked you to support YOUR OWN CLAIMS. I've already demonstrated that I can (and have) successfully predicted *BOTH* types of CME's/flares. You claim it's easy, like predicting rain. It's not that simple.
Edited by Lisa Simpson: 
Edited to remove personal remarks.


Consider your qualifications to understand this simple scientific concept challenged. Please demonstrate that you are so qualified.
Click to expand...

I did. I successfully predicted both kinds of flares in real time. You've yet to demonstrate anything of the sort.

And to address your point directly, the filaments that erupt do indeed erupt. You are correct in that claim. And I agree that the filaments that erupt are erupting. I think we all agree. It's a tautology, which means that by the nature of it being true, it's true. And water is wet, and when there's no light it's dark. So what?
Click to expand...

So what? So let's see you do it if it's just so easy. It's a lot more complicated than you make it sound, it's not simple and you certainly can't do it real time as I have done.

That EM flare I predicted had *NOTHING* at all to do with dark filaments by the way. You *COMPLETELY* ignored that successful prediction even though there wasn't even a single C class flare on our side of the sun for 12 days prior to my prediction. I nailed the large flare to within 20 minutes. You're all talk and no action. You can't predict CME's or flares, but you act like it's easy. If it's so easy, do it. If you don't, we know you're just bluffing and you're oversimplifying the process to the point of absurdity.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom