No, I *CLAIMED* time and time again that dark filament "ERUPTIONS* cause CME's [...]
Actually you claimed that dark filaments cause CMEs, so your denial of that fact is not true. You recall I've already supported that by quoting you several times in
Post #295. You may have acknowledged that your claim about dark filaments causing CMEs was wrong, and
now be claiming that the dark filament
eruptions cause CMEs. You absolutely were not claiming that before.
But even your current claim is wholly unsupported. One widely accepted view among the legitimate scientists and educators who work in fields related to solar physics is that CMEs are caused by magnetic reconnection. A pretty good candidate for the cause of filament eruptions is magnetic fields around filaments becoming unstable. And other than some guesses derived from your unqualified interpretation of some images, you haven't offered any alternative explanations for any of it.
[...] and I'm using that knowledge to "predict" two flares today. One of those predictions has already panned out. I'm still waiting to see when the second mass flow becomes visible.
And you still haven't defined what you mean by "predict". So your comment above might as well be gibberish, a string of words that look like English but have no sensible meaning as long as you refuse to let us know what the words mean
when you use them. Your comment above
seems to mean you've made a guess and you're waiting to see if your guess is correct.
Yes, and I have explained it to you publicly too, satellite images and everything. I've shown you the images I've used, the things I'm looking for, I've made actual predictions, etc. You've done nothing but complain.
You have not described the method you
claim to use, certainly not scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively. So that is also not a true statement. And I have done very much other than complain, so that response is untrue, too. I've pointed out your continued failure to support your claims, as well as showing where you've attempted to construct your arguments from logical fallacies.
I have never guessed, and I didn't guess at either flare today. The first one is visible already. The second one will become visible shortly. You can't "debunk" something that works GM. All you're doing it burying yourself in a hole. That first predicted flare is already visible in COR now. The second one will show up, I promise you. It's not a guess. It's never been a guess. I"ve even shown you the images I've used, and I've even shown you (well RC showed you) the statistical correlation to the filament eruptions and flares is 95 percent with very little more than simple categorization processes. There's no 'guess'.
Since the method you've described for making your "prediction" is looking at pictures of solar activity and "predicting" that it will continue, your method can be described, by any reasonable definition of the word, as a guess. You could correct that situation by describing your method quantitatively, scientifically, and objectively. Show the math. Explain the data quantitatively. Make your method clear and understandable so that other people can apply it, obtain the same results that you do, and reach the same conclusions that you've reached.
Until you can do that, you do not have a method and your "predictions" can be dismissed as guesses.
You've been challenged to show you superior understanding of solar physics. Will you rise to that challenge GM?
Science isn't a contest. You've made several claims, and the burden of proof is on you to support them. That is your responsibility. I learned that in about fifth grade when I was around eleven years old. I obviously have the qualifications necessary to know
that. Your regular attempts to shift the burden of proof are strong evidence that you do not possess those qualifications. Consequently my qualifications to understand that elementary aspect of science are arguably superior.
But the fact is, almost everything you've claimed about solar physics has been shown to be wrong, so I could know absolutely nothing about it and
still have arguably superior qualifications. But truth be told, my qualifications are not relevant to
your claims. You're the one making the claims here, and your complete failure to support them has not escaped anyone's notice.
Now perhaps you'd like to define the term "predicting" as you're using it, and follow that by describing that method you claim to have for "predicting" CMEs, scientifically, quantitatively, and objectively, as you've been asked to do for almost two weeks.
!).
.
!