CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Michael Mozina]

I said you appear to have no method other than guessing.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

I've shown you that the method is statistically linked to flares at a whopping 95 percent even without any further qualification on my part. I've shown that the method works in real time too.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

 

[Reality Check]

Since we've discussed a cathode solar model for months on end, you couldn't possibly be confuse about my belief that the EM field is the motive force behind the particle acceleration.

You seem to be confused.
I stated nothing about the debunked "cathode solar model" (see Electric universe theories for its debunking).
The fact is EM fields are the motive force behind plasma acceleration in the varous scientific theories, e.g. a magnetic field (and its associated electric field) changes configuration, energy stored in the EM field is released, heats plasma and propels it away from the Sun.

The real kicker is that if the "cathode solar model" is right then this whole thread is moot because that idea basically says everything is electrical discharges. Since electrical discharges are impossible on the Sun (plasma conducts), flares and CME are impossible in the "cathode solar model" (as well as filaments and coronal loops).

I won't even go into the whole surface/heliosphere charge separation aspect again in this thread.

That is good because a couple of minutes thought (if you know some physics) make it obvious that there is no such thing. But I think that has been covered enough a few existing threads, e.g. the very long Electric universe theories here thread.

 

[Michael Mozina]

You seem to be confused.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

There can *BE NO DOUBT* as to my personal position on the motive force behind the flares and CME's. Nobody, and I mean nobody that's been following these threads could be in any way confused about my position on that subject.

Edited by Lisa Simpson: 

Edited to remove personal remarks.

 

[Lisa Simpson]

Yet again, I am forced to remind people not call names and argue each other, but to argue the topic. Stop it now.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

 

[Michael Mozina]

They detected disappearing filaments *EXACTLY* as described in the paper.

I really don't get your whole aversion to the term "dark" in relationship to that kind of plasma. I didn't see a listing or link to the actual computer code that they used to isolate the filaments and detect 'missing' ones, but I can think of only one logical way to get a computer to identify and record those those filaments. The fact they are darker than the rest of the materials offers them at least one logical way to isolate those filaments.

They are certainly "dark" in H-Alpha images. Again, it's simply a "property" of that kind of plasma and it makes it possible to isolate those filaments in a logical and systematic way. I fail to see why you seem to have such an aversion to the term 'dark' in relationship to those particular filaments. Those filaments aren't just dark in H-Alpha, they are dark in 335A, 211A and 193A as well. That dark "feature" is simply visually obvious. If I was trying to show someone which filaments I was describing, the natural way to point them out would be to point at the darkened filaments and note that the ones I'm looking for are dark.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yet again, I am forced to remind people not call names and argue each other, but to argue the topic. Stop it now.

Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson

Sorry, it's been a long day.

 

[Reality Check]

Has your 10 Oct 2010 prediction failed, Michael Mozina

For the record, I have been re-reading some of the earlier posts to confirm what I thought.

Lets go back to this one:

For the record, my post was posted on 10/10/2010 at about 19:49UT, and my prediction was that we would see confirmation of the CME in LASCO/COR within 2 to 5 hours. The CME becomes visible right after midnight UT in COR and LASCO. I'd say that's pretty damn close.

In fact, you are wrong Michael Mozina. The post is the one I cited as the original post

I suspect well be able to see the CME in LASCO-C2 and LASCO C3 SOHO images within the next couple of hours.

What I missed was so obvious eek: There is no prediction of "within 2 to 5 hours" in the original post!

What you actually predicted in your original post was that the CME would be visible in COR and LASCO a "couple of hours" after "10/10/2010 at about 19:49UT".
If a couple is 2 then that is 10/10/2010 21:49UT.
If a couple is 3 then that is 10/10/2010 22:49UT.
If a couple is 4 then that is 10/10/2010 23:49UT.
If a couple is 5 then that is 10/11/2010 00:49UT.
Thus either

1. In your bit of the world, a couple has more than doubled or
2. Your prediction failed.

I would say that your prediction was pretty damn far off the result.

 

[Michael Mozina]

The real kicker is that if the "cathode solar model" is right then this whole thread is moot because that idea basically says everything is electrical discharges.

I really am trying to avoid even mentioning solar theories in this thread, but in truth Birkeland's model would not even work properly without a strong, internal solar magnetic field. Induction, particle collisions, and other methods of EM acceleration are still viable options, even in an electric solar model.

 

[GeeMack]

I really am trying to avoid even mentioning solar theories in this thread, but in truth Birkeland's model would not even work properly without a strong, internal solar magnetic field. Induction, particle collisions, and other methods of EM acceleration are still viable options, even in an electric solar model.

This comment contains a serious error. Kristian Birkeland didn't have a solar model. A solar model is a mathematical description of the Sun which explains its properties including density, thermal characteristics, material makeup, luminosity, and physical function. A solar model endeavors to quantitatively explain those properties as they fit the observed data, as they relate to each other, and as they work within the known laws of physics. Birkeland didn't give much consideration to most of those aspects much less develop a mathematical description to explain them.

 

[Michael Mozina]

For the record, I have been re-reading some of the earlier posts to confirm what I thought.

Lets go back to this one:

In fact, you are wrong Michael Mozina. The post is the one I cited as the original post

What I missed was so obvious eek: There is no prediction of "within 2 to 5 hours" in the original post!

The "window" of time that we talked about came from a post that mas made later on in our conversation while I was trying to work a beer out of ya.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6427198&postcount=23
I went back and looked and I can actually see some of the earliest material in the COR images as early as 23:30 or so.

FYI, that paper that you cited even mentions that approximately two hour time lag between the time a filament eruption occurs and the time when we can actually observe that mass flow in LASCO/COR. I also explained where it originated. You can whine about the timeline if you really want to, but it certainly wasn't a "lucky guess".

 

[Michael Mozina]

This comment contains a serious error.

I'm not even going to go there in this thread.

 

[GeeMack]

The "window" of time that we talked about came from a post that mas made later on in our conversation while I was trying to work a beer out of ya.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=6426964#post6426964

I went back and looked and I can actually see some of the earliest material in the COR images as early as 23:30 or so.

FYI, that paper that you cited even mentions that approximately two hour time lag between the time a filament eruption occurs and the time when we can actually observe that mass flow in LASCO/COR. I also explained where it originated. You can whine about the timeline if you really want to, but it certainly wasn't a "lucky guess".

Michael, early in this thread before you were aware of the paper Reality Check referenced, you claimed to have a scientific, quantitative, objective method for "predicting" CMEs. You've claimed it many times, yet your "predictions" aren't any more accurate than they might be if they were just guesses. Describe the method, quantitatively, scientifically, and objectively.

 

[Reality Check]

The "window" of time that we talked about came from a post that mas made later on in our conversation while I was trying to work a beer out of ya.

I do hope that you did not alter it just to win a beer - that is not honest !
I will assume that the 2 to 5 hour interval was just a joke by you since it is so obviously different from the actual prediction.

I went back and looked and I can actually see some of the earliest material in the COR images as early as 23:30 or so.

I do not know what your point is.

1. That is still almost 2 hours outside of your prediction of "couple of hours" after "10/10/2010 at about 19:49UT", i.e. 10/10/2010 21:49UT.
2. Your prediction was LASCO images, not about COR images.

Thus your prediction remains wrong.

FYI, that paper that you cited even mentions that approximately two hour time lag between the time a filament eruption occurs and the time when we can actually observe that mass flow in LASCO/COR.

FYI I know that because I was the one that

1. Told you about the paper.
2. Confirmed to you that it mentions a 2 hour interval.

However you did not read the paper carefully enough:.
On the Relation between Filament Eruptions, Flares, and Coronal Mass Ejections

We chose this particular time delay because it takes approximately 2 hr for a CME traveling at a relatively low plane-of-sky speed of 200 km s-1 to cover a distance of 2 R, i.e., to reach the LASCO C2 FOV.

(my emphasis added)
The 2 hours that a CME spends getting from the Sun to the LASCO C2 FOV is for a slowly moving CME.
A CME moving at an average speed will get to the FOV faster.
A CME moving at a fast speed will get to the FOV even faster.

I will emphasis this for you: the 2 hour interval is a maximum.

You can whine about the timeline if you really want to, but it certainly wasn't a "lucky guess".

It is not whining to point out that the timeline means that your prediction is wrong.

The prediction was actually an unlucky (you got it wrong) guess:

1. You did not and have still not presented any evidence that you did anything more than guess.
   What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
   (First asked 12 October 2010)
2. Any predictions that you made before I told you about the paper are definitely guesses (unless you answer the above question).
   If you cite the paper but misinterpret what it contains (as above) then your predictions remain guesses.

Charitably it is just possible that you have looked at so many images of filament eruptions and CME that you have a gut feeling for the interval between them. That would make your predictions into informed guesses.
On the other hand, I am not confident that your level of expertise in image interpretation is good enough for an informed guess since the first couple of posts about CME from you incorrectly identifed CME.

It looks like the interactive active regions have generated a small CME

Posted at 23rd September 2010, 05:05 AM

There seem to be at least two types of CME's that took place on the 22nd

Posted at 25th September 2010, 04:48 AM.

No CME were reported for 21, 22, 23, 24 or 25 Sep 2010.
​

 

[GeeMack]

Charitably it is just possible that you have looked at so many images of filament eruptions and CME that you have a gut feeling for the interval between them. That would make your predictions into informed guesses.
On the other hand, I am not confident that your level of expertise in image interpretation is good enough for an informed guess since the first couple of posts about CME from you incorrectly identifed CME.

It does seem pretty certain at this point, because of the claimant's inability/unwillingness to describe a method and a demonstrated lack of any qualification to understand solar imagery in particular and scientific research in general, that the claim about having a legitimate scientific, quantitative, objective method of predicting CMEs has been pretty soundly debunked. The "predictions" made so far can be reasonably attributed to guessing.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

FYI ...

There is a Zooinverse project called Solar StormWatch, in which lots (at least several hundred) citizen scientists analyse images from the STEREOs.

The 'mission statement':

Solar scientists need you!

Help them spot explosions on the Sun and track them across space to Earth. Your work will give astronauts an early warning if dangerous solar radiation is headed their way. And you could make a new scientific discovery.

They even have a forum, where discussions about CMEs (and more) take place.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Michael, early in this thread before you were aware of the paper Reality Check referenced, you claimed to have a scientific, quantitative, objective method for "predicting" CMEs. You've claimed it many times, yet your "predictions" aren't any more accurate than they might be if they were just guesses. Describe the method, quantitatively, scientifically, and objectively.

You don't even know how to tell the truth, do you? You can't even make up your mind. Half the time you accuse me of simply 'seeing' it, the other half you accuse me "guessing". Which is it?

 

[Michael Mozina]

I do hope that you did not alter it just to win a beer - that is not honest !

Er, no. At that point in the day, the CME wasn't visible yet.

I will assume that the 2 to 5 hour interval was just a joke by you since it is so obviously different from the actual prediction.

It wasn't a joke RC, it was an honest attempt to put limits on the bet so we could have a clear way to determine a "winner". FYI, the first mass flows from that CME became visible in LASCO about the same time as COR. There's very little difference between the the two. It also takes awhile before it's "obvious" that the CME has occurred in LASCO. That's why I selected that 5 hour maximum.

The problem RC is that the filament had not even erupted as of my first post, so that two hour "maximum" you mentioned wasn't applicable yet. Until the filament actually "erupts', it's a waiting game. The 3 to 5 hour window that I mentioned in our conversation would have been a "realistic bet" given those circumstances whereas the original post was actually intended as a friendly heads up over what was about to happen.

In terms of how long it takes to see a filament eruption in LASCO, a couple of hours is about average in my experience, but the speed of the filament matters. The eruption process itself can be 'fast' or 'slow' and there are a number of "issues" that require some consideration. That 3-5 hour window I tried to get you to commit to was a reasonable timeline to bet the beer given those scenarios. That's a more realistic "bet" or "prediction". As I said, the first post was more of heads up, because the filament itself was accelerating away from the surface at that point and it was clear to me that it would definitely "erupt" very soon. Exactly *WHEN* that would occur wasn't completely obvious.

There's a direct, physical "cause/effect" link between the mass that is "erupting" in that filament and the CME that becomes visible a few hours later in LASCO and COR. There was no 'guess' involved other than when the filament actually would "erupt" completely. That's the only ambiguous aspect of these types of CME's, particularly when the expanding thread is *HUGE* as was the case with that particular eruption. The size of the eruption was bound to be "big" but the filament itself was still intact at that point and didn't actually 'erupt' for more than an hour.

What should have been a "no brainer" part of this conversation (erupting filaments cause CME's) has been like a trip to the dentist. First you folks tried to deny the relationship. The last few days you've been like lawyers trying to find loopholes.

You two *DEFINITELY* are not ready to even think about discussing the 'visual signs' that allowed me to predict that sequence of EM flares we saw down to a 20 minute window, and 5 minute window before the first B class flare.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI ...

There is a Zooinverse project called Solar StormWatch, in which lots (at least several hundred) citizen scientists analyse images from the STEREOs.

The 'mission statement':


They even have a forum, where discussions about CMEs (and more) take place.

Thanks. I'll check it out. Is it limited to STEREO data only?

 

[GeeMack]

You don't even know how to tell the truth, do you? You can't even make up your mind. Half the time you accuse me of simply 'seeing' it, the other half you accuse me "guessing". Which is it?

I certainly do know how to tell the truth. Your irrelevant, direct personal attack is noted.

I've made up my mind, tentatively, based on the facts presented. No scientific, objective, quantitative method for "predicting" CMEs has been described to support the initial claim that such a method had been developed and was being used. The results of the "predictions" have not proven statistically more significant than might be expected from guessing, less so actually. No qualifications to properly analyze scientific research or solar imagery have been demonstrated. It is reasonable to accept that the "predictions" made so far are simply the results of guessing that some observed existing solar activity would continue to exist.

Of course being a good skeptic, my position is subject to change if evidence is presented that scientifically and objectively supports an alternative explanation.

Simply seeing it, and guessing that it might continue, are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Posted at 23rd September 2010, 05:05 AM

"It looks like the interactive active regions have generated a small CME"

You're right, that was a sloppy choice of words on my part. I should have said a small FLARE, not CME. A small mass ejection of material, or highly directional mass flow is typically categorized as a "flare", not a CME. It's the same process, it's simply a matter of "size".