The method you've described so far amounts to looking at a picture of existing activity and guessing that the activity will continue to exist.
That's a lie. Activity happens all the time on the. CME's and flares are relatively rare. I didn't "guess" at that large EM flare, I PREDICTED it, I quantified my prediction, and it happened in the timeline I picked. RC used the method you described *AFTER* the first big flare took place, but I actually predicted it in advance.
Ditto on all the mass flows observed in Lasco. You could try to claim that I was looking at a pictures of existing mass flow and *KNOWING* it must continue due to the laws of physics.
The method you've described so far amounts to looking at pictures of existing activity and guessing that the activity will continue to exist. All you'd have to do to show that it's more scientific than that is describe your quantitative, objective method for making your "prediction". Yet rather than describe it, you call me a liar. If asked to describe what he claimed to be a scientific method, would Birkeland have described his method, or called the person asking for it a liar?
Then since you've never described that quantitative, scientific, objective, method for predicting CMEs, how about you describe it now? Or are we just supposed to believe your claim without any support?
What's the point of saying anything to you personally? You aren't interested in what I have to say. You're only interested in arguing to hear yourself argue. I'm sitting here describing solar physical processes, and you're in pure denial of all the cause/effect relationships related to CME/flare prediction.
Not everything can be quantified. Not everything needs to be quantified. Sometimes *BASIC UNDERSTANDING* has to come first, and you haven't reached that point yet.
Can we take this to mean your "method" can't be quantified, doesn't need to be quantified? It does seem like an admission that you don't have a quantitative, scientific, objective, method for predicting CMEs. Is that what you mean by, "Not everything can be quantified. Not everything needs to be quantified?"
All you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears and screaming "I can't hear you". What's the point of that behavior?
Your persistence in turning your responses into personal attacks and your refusal to actually address the questions being asked are, as always, noted.
If you were really any sort of "expert" on solar flare prediction, you'd have shown us your talents by now. Since you've ignored everything I've posted, refused to offer us any "explanations" of your own, you've added absolutely nothing of scientific value to this discussion.
You're the one making a claim. It's not my responsibility to support it. I learned that when I was about eleven years old. You seem to be having trouble catching on. Would you like some help understanding that simple grade school level concept of burden of proof?
Why are you even posting to this thread?
Mostly pointing out the fact that you continue to make claims while being wholly unwilling and/or unable to support them. And occasionally I'm pointing out the logical fallacies you're trying but failing to use as arguments.
If Birkeland were asked to describe a scientific method he claimed to have for doing something, but didn't really have it, would he have lied?
Why is it that you need to call someone a liar every day? Do you need a constant fix or rude behavior or what?
The question was, if Birkeland had been asked to describe a scientific method he
claimed to have for doing something, but didn't really have it, would he have lied? It's a simple yes/no question, Michael. In this situation would he have lied?
.
