CME's, active regions and high energy flares

GeeMack said:
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.
Click to expand...

You've made up your mind alright, but it has nothing to do with the fact presented. In *FACT* I predicted that M class flare to within a 20 minute window. That *FACT* has never been addressed. The only FACT you're going by is the FACT you like to argue.
 
GeeMack said:
Your continued irrelevant personal attack is noted.
Click to expand...

You're the one that makes it "personal". It should not be "personal", it should be "factual". In "fact" dark filament eruptions are directly related to mass ejections we later observe in LASCO and COR. That is a "factual" statement. That is the 'fact" I am using to "predict' what I will later observe in LASCO and COR. The "eruption" of mass begins with the filament eruption. That mass flow continues on into space. There's a direct physical cause/effect relationship between the mass ejection of the filament eruption and the mass ejections seen in LASCO and COR. Those are the only relevant "facts" here.

In "fact" I am in fact "seeing the signs" of mass movement. It's not a mystery. Anyone that WANTED to understand it and do it for themselves could do it. There is no guess work involved, it's pure physics and careful observation. Those are the "facts".
 
FYI, the "facts" are also that there are "clear visual signs" of EM flares too. There's no point in discussing it further until we *AT LEAST* all agree on how we might 'predict' dark filament eruptions *BEFORE* they occur *JUST AS I DID IN THE FIRST FLARE/CME*. You're complaining about missing it by an hour or two, but that "window of doubt" is directly related to the time it takes between the first "signs" of filament eruptions, and the actual eruption. That's the only ambiguous part of "predicting" filament eruption CME's and flares. Flares and CME's both result from the exact same physical processes and the only difference between them is size and directional aspects related to that mass ejection process.

EM flare prediction is *MUCH* more complicated to be honest, but I'd say I'm getting pretty good at it now. Any real "scientist" would have to sit up and take notice that I PREDICTED (real prediction) that large flare within an hour window, and with plenty of time for astronauts on the ISS to seek shelter *BEFORE* the flare even occurred. If that's not enough to make you sit up and take notice, what is?
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
You're the one that makes it "personal". It should not be "personal", it should be "factual".
Click to expand...



  • Fact: You have been asked many, many times to describe your scientific, quantitative, objective method that you unambiguously claimed you've used to make your "predictions".

  • Fact: You have never described that method that you claimed to have.

  • Fact: The method you have described amounts to looking at pictures and guessing that some existing activity will continue to exist.

  • Fact: The chances of your "predictions" being correct appear to be somewhere in the neighborhood of 95%, even if you take a wild shot in the dark guess. The odds of getting a hit by pure blind luck are roughly equal to "predicting" that you'll cut a shuffled deck to something that isn't a black king, and then doing it.

  • Fact: Even given those extraordinary odds of guessing correctly you have failed at least once, and arguably more often. That makes the success rate for your "predictions", using the method you claim to use, which appears to be guessing, even less than might be expected if it were raw lucky guessing.

  • Fact: There is no compelling evidence to suggest that your "predictions" are the results of anything other than guessing that some activity you've observed will continue to exist.


There's a direct physical cause/effect relationship between the mass ejection of the filament eruption and the mass ejections seen in LASCO and COR.
Click to expand...


If, and only if, you want to redefine the word "cause" to mean that the existence of something is the cause of its existence.
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, the "facts" are also that there are "clear visual signs" of EM flares too. There's no point in discussing it further until we *AT LEAST* all agree on how we might 'predict' dark filament eruptions *BEFORE* they occur *JUST AS I DID IN THE FIRST FLARE/CME*.
Click to expand...


I think it's fair to say most of us agree your "prediction" could just as easily have been a guess. When you agree with that, let us know, then it will be unanimous.

You're complaining about missing it by an hour or two, but that "window of doubt" is directly related to the time it takes between the first "signs" of filament eruptions, and the actual eruption. That's the only ambiguous part of "predicting" filament eruption CME's and flares. Flares and CME's both result from the exact same physical processes and the only difference between them is size and directional aspects related to that mass ejection process.
Click to expand...


You seem to be saying that you notice the beginnings of an eruption and use that to "predict" that the eruption will continue. That seems a lot like feeling a few drops of rain and predicting it's going to rain. Doesn't sound too tough. In fact, I'd be inclined to say, so what?

EM flare prediction is *MUCH* more complicated to be honest, but I'd say I'm getting pretty good at it now. Any real "scientist" would have to sit up and take notice that I PREDICTED (real prediction) that large flare within an hour window, and with plenty of time for astronauts on the ISS to seek shelter *BEFORE* the flare even occurred.
Click to expand...


And how did those folks over at NASA respond when you informed them of this? And the real scientists working on the SDO project, what was their reaction?

If that's not enough to make you sit up and take notice, what is?
Click to expand...


A thorough description of your method for "predicting" CMEs, scientific, quantitative, and objective. Include all your quantitative data and relevant calculations. Describe the method in such a way that other people can apply it, achieve the same results you have, and interpret the results to mean the same thing you're claiming. You know, that thing we've been asking for day after day since at least October 12.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Er, no. At that point in the day, the CME wasn't visible yet.
Click to expand...
Er, no.
Originally Posted by Michael Mozina
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.
Click to expand...


Michael Mozina said:
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".
Click to expand...
If it was not a joke then it was a dishonest attempt to rig the bet.

Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
Er, no yet again
Michael Mozina said:
The SDO 304A image shows the best view of the exploding filament. You can now observe it's outward momentum very clearly in the SDO 304A images. I suspect well be able to see the CME in LASCO-C2 and LASCO C3 SOHO images within the next couple of hours.
Click to expand...
(emphasis added)
You state that
  1. The filament is "exploding", i.e. erupting.
  2. You make a prediction that you can only make when a filament has exploded.
Michael Mozina said:
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.
Click to expand...
I must have mussed that prediction. Can you post a link to the post where you stated
  • The UT time that the "sequence of EM flares" would start.
  • The UT time that the "sequence of EM flares" would end.
  • The class of flare that you predicted.
  • the method that you used to make this prediction.
And of course a link to the post where you announced the results.
 
FYI, this mass flow is probably going to be more visible in the COR images first due to the fact it's face on in LASCO. That dark filament was totally stable this morning. I just had some time at work to look at the images, and I couldn't believe it erupted. The reason the "dark" filaments are so interesting is that they tend to erupt as a whole and they contain a lot of mass.
 
Last edited:
FYI, if you look at about the 4:00 position where that dark filament is going over the horizon, the dark material is doing all kinds of funky dances, but it's making no "overt" signs of "blowing" yet. It's worth keeping an eye on that region to see what happens. Stay tune to "As the sun turns". :)
 
FYI, the LASCO and COR images contain a bonus feature this time. There's a comet taking it's final plunge into the solar atmosphere and you can watch it burn up in the COR images. Very cool bonus feature while we're waiting to see how my 1-4 hour prediction holds up. Nice.
 
Relative to LASCO, the mass flow tends to look like it's moving in about the 1:15 position, but it took place near the center of the sun. It may be wee "tardy' showing up in LASCO due to the angle of the flare, but I'm pretty comfortable with that 1-4 hour window. Anyone ready to ante up a beer this time?
 
Michael Mozina said:
http://sdo.gsfc.nasa.gov/assets/img/latest/latest_1024_0211.mpg

Oh look, another major dark filament eruption took place today while I was working near the center of the sun this time. Guess what we'll be seeing in a few hours? Anyone ready to bet a beer on say a 1-4 hour window this time?
Click to expand...


Will you pay off like you did on this bet?..

Michael Mozina at SFN 02/09/2006 said:
I hear you on that point. I've already stuck my neck *WAY* out on a limb with the STEREO program. I'm betting the farm that they'll "discover" that the 171A, 195A, and 284A image originate *underneath* the photosphere, not above it. That's a real falsification mechanism that I'll accept as a viable way to determine which "interpretation" is accurate, and there should not be much room for error. I'm going to pay close attention to that data, I assure you. I'm interesting in both proving my case and also in falsifying it as well.
Click to expand...

... where I said this?...

GeeMack at SFN 02/11/2006 said:
Whatever portion of the farm you're willing to cut me in on, Michael, I'll take a piece of that bet.
Click to expand...

... and you said this...

Michael Mozina at SFN 02/12/2006 said:
Great. The loser doesn't *ever* participate in any discussion related to this topic (solar theory) on this website or any website where the other participates. The loser also buys the winner a six pack of their favorite beer. Agreed?
Click to expand...

... yet nobody discovered with the STEREO program that those 171Å, 195Å, and 284Å images originated underneath the photosphere, and yet you didn't accept that as determining any interpretation of anything one way or another, you didn't accept it as falsification of anything, you still didn't send me my beer, and you're still participating here contrary to the terms of your bet? Will this bet somehow be different?

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, this mass flow is probably going to be more visible in the COR images first due to the fact it's face on in LASCO. That dark filament was totally stable this morning. I just had some time at work to look at the images, and I couldn't believe it erupted. The reason the "dark" filaments are so interesting is that they tend to erupt as a whole and they contain a lot of mass.
Click to expand...

Michael Mozina said:
FYI, if you look at about the 4:00 position where that dark filament is going over the horizon, the dark material is doing all kinds of funky dances, but it's making no "overt" signs of "blowing" yet. It's worth keeping an eye on that region to see what happens. Stay tune to "As the sun turns". :)
Click to expand...


So are you making another guess here? Can you put "probably", "more", "dark", "totally", "whole", "a lot", "all kinds of", and "overt signs" into mathematical, quantitative terms?

And how's it coming on that description of that method you claimed to have for "predicting" CMEs? That scientific, quantitative, and objective method including sources for all your data and relevant calculations? That method that is objective so that other people can apply it, achieve the same results you have, and interpret the results to mean the same thing you're claiming? You've been ignoring that issue since at least October 12. Or are you going to abandon your claim and acknowledge that you never had such a method?
 
Michael Mozina said:
FYI, since I picked a 48 hour window, I get *EVERY* flare that occurs in that active region in that 48 hour window.
Click to expand...
FYI, I predict that there will be some kind of activity (flares/CME) from active region 11113 in the next 48 hours.
I will "get" *EVERY* flare/CME that occurs in that active region in that 48 hour window.
Got in before you MM :D!
One advantage of living in a different time zone than you.
 
Last edited:
If we see a CME in a LASCO image can we tell what color the filament that erupted was

quote=Michael Mozina;6461846]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.[/quote]
From yesterday but it does raise a question:
How are the "types of CME's" that you claim dark filament *ERUPTIONS* cause different from the "types of CME's" that all filament *ERUPTIONS* are correlated with?

IOW: If we see a CME in a LASCO image can we tell what color the filament that erupted was?

My guess is that there is no difference between CME from dark filaments and other filaments since there is little physical difference between them that I can find in my research.
But I am sure that you, Michael Mozina, can provide lots of citations to papers listing the physical differences between dark and other filaments. Other than the obvious of course: dark filaments appear dark in some wavelengths, the other filaments appear dark in other wavelengths.
 
Reality Check said:
FYI, I predict that there will be some kind of activity (flares/CME) from active region 11113 in the next 48 hours.
I will "get" *EVERY* flare/CME that occurs in that active region in that 48 hour window.
Got in before you MM :D!
One advantage of living in a different time zone than you.
Click to expand...

FYI, the filament eruptions are not necessarily directly related to active regions, and that is especially true of the last filament that erupted. It's certainly possible that the shock wave from the filament eruption could have some effect on that active region due to proximity, but other than that, 11113 looks pretty stable to me. In other words, you can have your active region. I personally doubt that particular active region is going to produce anything of any significance. You *MIGHT* get a B flare out of it, but that specific active regions look pretty stable to me. I'd be surprised if it actually produced even one C class flare or better over the next 48 hours.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom