CME's, active regions and high energy flares

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, these cause/effect relationships between erupting filaments and flares will be relatively easy to demonstrate with SDO, particularly if we do it "after the fact" like this morning. Even at the movie resolutions available on the SDO website, the details are simply fabulous. Between LASCO and SDO, that filament eruption process is pretty straight forward to demonstrate.

 

[Michael Mozina]

In the last couple of frames of the C3 images you can definitely see the mass flow in the 1:30 position. There is no evidence of a cause/effect link to the mass we see "flow" from the surface in the filament eruptions and the mass flows we observe in LASCO. Mass in motion tends to stay in motion. The filament eruption could have been the start of the mass flow.

There's no such thing as "could have been" in this case. We already identified the time and the location of the eruption, the direction it was headed in terms of the hour hand on a clock, etc. There's no way it's just a "coincidence' that the direction of the eruption of the flare directly coincides with the direction of the mass flow of the flare. There is a physical cause/effect link between the mass flow from the eruption and the mass flows seen in LASCO a few hours later. We can even "predict" which way the mass flow is headed!

That fact we can pin down the direction of the mass flow based the direction of the filament eruption, *AND* the approximate time they will show up in LASCO demonstrates a direct cause effect link between them. There's no "guess". There is "mass flow" from the filament that eventually becomes visible in LASCO and COR. They all showed the mass flow coming out the top of the sun right where the filament erupted. That particularly flare was even pretty "directional" because the filament was pretty well constrained. I we go back to the first filament eruption I predicted in this thread, we can see that was a larger thread, it was more spread out, and it led to a greater amount of mass flow. There's a direct cause/effect link there RC. There's no point in denying it. It's like trying to deny that the sun is shinning. SDO makes it impossible for you to defend that position for very long. Each and very filament eruption will allow us to 'predict" both the location and time of that the flare will become visible in LASCO. That will play out over and over again RC. How long do you figure that argument will fly anyway?

 

[Reality Check]

That would be "nice", but it's physically impossible. It's also way overkill. All we need to do is track the ....

Wrong.
Your assertion is that the mass of the filament ends up as the mass of the CME. The only way to know this is to see that the mass of the filamnet ends up as the mass of the CME.

Boloney! The mass flow must "track" into ...

Boloney! The CME must track into the LASCO FOV if it has the right direction to tract track the LASCO FOV.
If it does, and does so on a timelilne that we expect based on the distances involved and the measured speed of the CME then we can certainly establish a statistical correlation between it and the filament eruptions that later show up in lasco. There isn't any real mystery here. A filament eruption is correlated with the CME/FLARE. It's not some nebulous connection, there is a statistical correlation between the erupting filaments and the direction and flow of mass from the sun we can later observe in LASCO.

SOME EM type flares are different from filament eruption flares. They are caused by 'bright" (not dark) filaments. Those types of flares/CME's have to be treated completely differently than the filament eruption type flares.

Wrong.
A flare caused by a filament eruption is caused by a filament eruption. You have sown no evidence for a causal link between filament eruptions and flares. There is evidence of a statistical correlation.

...
SDO is a game changer.

That is right: SDO is a game changer.
And until the game changes

Coronal mass ejections are often associated with other forms of solar activity, most notably solar flares, but a causal relationship has not been established.
​

is still true and your assertion of such a causal relationship has no evidence in support of it.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Wrong.
Your assertion is that the mass of the filament ends up as the mass of the CME. The only way to know this is to see that the mass of the filamnet ends up as the mass of the CME.

We know the mass comes from somewhere, right? We know the filament erupted at the 1:30 position. We know that the LASCO recorded a mass flow from the same position, a few hours after the filament erupted. What exactly is left to chance?

Boloney! The CME must track into the LASCO FOV if it has the right direction to tract track the LASCO FOV.

That one sure did! It tracked directly into the same path as the erupting filament a few hours after the filament erupted. Again, what is there left to debate?

If it does, and does so on a timelilne that we expect based on the distances involved and the measured speed of the CME then we can certainly establish a statistical correlation between it and the filament eruptions that later show up in lasco.

There's more than a "statistical correlation" going on here, there is a PHYSICAL CAUSE EFFECT process in play. Where did you figure that mass came from if not the erupting filament that preceded it?

 

[Reality Check]

There's no such thing as "could have been" in this case.We already identified the time and the location of the eruption, the direction it was headed in terms of the hour hand on a clock, etc. There's no way it's just a "coincidence' that the direction of the eruption of the flare directly coincides with the direction of the mass flow of the flare. There is a physical cause/effect link between the mass flow from the eruption and the mass flows seen in LASCO a few hours later. We can even "predict" which way the mass flow is headed!

Still wrong:
There is no "we" here. You say that you have identified

• the time and the location of the eruption.
• The directrion that the eruption was headed
• etc.

There is little evidence of this in this thread.
There is no "eruption of the flare". Your assertion is about an eruption of a filament.

There is no evidence of a physical cause/effect link between the mass flow from the eruption and the mass flows seen in LASCO a few hours later.
There is

1. A filament eruption happens where plasma flows away fom the filament.
2. Something happens.
   This could be that the vanishing magnetic fields from the filament cause coronal mass to be ejected from the sun.
   This could be the filament mass itself being ejected from the sun.
   You have presented no evidence for either case, e.g. if the composition of the CME is the same as the composition of the filament then that would be supporting evidence.
3. A CME the leaves the sun.
4. This CME is detected at LASCO.

That fact we can pin down the direction of the mass flow based the direction of the filament eruption, *AND* the approximate time they will show up in LASCO
...usual ignorance about cause/effect snipped...

The fact is that you have not pinned down anything. You have not shown your calculations for any of you guesses (that is why they are guesses not predictions).
You have not specified the mechanism that propels the CME from the sun. Thus you have no cause/effect link.

 

[Reality Check]

FYI, these cause/effect relationships between erupting filaments and flares will be relatively easy to demonstrate with SDO, particularly if we do it "after the fact" like this morning. Even at the movie resolutions available on the SDO website, the details are simply fabulous. Between LASCO and SDO, that filament eruption process is pretty straight forward to demonstrate.

FYI, these cause/effect relationships between erupting filaments and flares will be extremely difficult to demonstrate with SDO, even if we do it "after the fact" like this morning. Between LASCO and SDO, that filament eruption process what has been known for many years

• Filament eruptions happen and have been detected for decades.
  SDO shows more details !
• The filament eruptions are statistically correlated with CME.

 

[Reality Check]

We know the mass comes from somewhere, right?

Yes we do. The Sun is full of mass ready to be pushed away by many processes.

Again, what is there left to debate?

Nothing. You still have no evidence that a filament eruption is the cause of the CME. The fact that a CME is detected at LASCO coming from the same general area as a filament eruption does not mean that the filament eruption causes it: Correlation does not imply causation.
There are other possibilities, e.g.

The cause of the CME is that there was a change in the configuration of the magnetic fields. That caused both the filament eruption and the CME.
​

There's more than a "statistical correlation" going on here, there is a PHYSICAL CAUSE EFFECT process in play. Where did you figure that mass came from if not the erupting filament that preceded it?

There's more than a statistical correlation going on here, there is a PHYSICAL CAUSE EFFECT process in play. That PHYSICAL CAUSE EFFECT could be that a change in the configuration of the magnetic Fields. That PHYSICAL CAUSE EFFECT caused both the filament eruption and the CME.

 

[Michael Mozina]

Yes we do. The Sun is full of mass ready to be pushed away by many processes.

Only one of those processes happened in the right place at the right time!

Nothing. You still have no evidence that a filament eruption is the cause of the CME.

Except of course that the CME came from that same filament eruption location/event at about the right time! The filament eruption *IS* the CME. We can see the mass erupt. We can see that mass flow in LASCO. There's nothing else required to explain the mass flow.

The fact that a CME is detected at LASCO coming from the same general area as a filament eruption does not mean that the filament eruption causes it: Correlation does not imply causation.

Sure it does. There's a physical "cause" correct? We observe 'mass flow' in the filament eruption and "mass flow" in the CME. Where's the disconnect?

There are other possibilities, e.g.

The cause of the CME is that there was a change in the configuration of the magnetic fields.​

We aren't talking about the motive force, we're talking about the SOURCE OF THE MASS FLOW. We both agree that the EM field provides the motive force that accelerates the mass, we're simply discussing where the mass flow begins. The filament might "erupt" due to the some type of *INDUCTION*, but that doesn't mean filaments eruptions do not supply the mass we see in CME's.​

 

[Michael Mozina]

Still wrong:
There is no "we" here. You say that you have identified

• the time and the location of the eruption.
• The directrion that the eruption was headed
• etc.

There is little evidence of this in this thread.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6482854&postcount=482

You mean except for my posts?

There is no "eruption of the flare". Your assertion is about an eruption of a filament.

There is an eruption of a filament followed by a mass ejection called a flare that becomes visible in LASCO at the 1:30 position, a few hours after the eruption.

There is no evidence of a physical cause/effect link between the mass flow from the eruption and the mass flows seen in LASCO a few hours later.

Except for the location, the time and the direction of the mass flow of course.

I can see now why astronomers are so confused about solar atmospheric activity. Even when the cause/effect links are obvious, you bury your collective heads in the sand.

There is a physical connection called mass flow between filament eruptions and mass ejections. They are in fact the exact same process, only we're seeing that mass eruption "earlier" as a "filament eruption". There no physical disconnect erupting filaments and flares in space, even if there is a physical disconnect somewhere in your head.

 

[Reality Check]

Micheal Mozina's Oct 10, 2010 "prediction" fails

Previously I asked this as a question but now it is more obviously a failure of Micheal Mozina's "method".

To recap: He made the following prediction at 10 Oct 2010 at about 19:49UT

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

But by 10 Oct 2010 21:49UT there was no CME detected at LASCO.

In fact a slow-moving, CME was detected at 11/0012Z by SOHO LASCO c2 imagery.

Micheal Mozina then gets a bit confused in this post

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.

The prediction in that post at 19:49UT was as above - a couple (2) hours not 2 to 5 hours. That is obviously pretty damn far away.
He then tried to make a bet with me and later thought that it was about that prediction when it was about a different post he made that mentioned "a few hours" which he stated would be "two or three".

Thus he never changed his original prediction.

The conclusion is that that prediction midssed the CME by over 2 hours.

 

[GeeMack]

I can see now why astronomers are so confused about solar atmospheric activity. Even when the cause/effect links are obvious, you bury your collective heads in the sand.

There is a physical connection called mass flow between filament eruptions and mass ejections. They are in fact the exact same process, only we're seeing that mass eruption "earlier" as a "filament eruption". There no physical disconnect erupting filaments and flares in space, even if there is a physical disconnect somewhere in your head.

Until you understand the logical fallacy you're using your argument is going to keep failing. And if you don't eventually catch on to the concept of cause and effect and how it works, it seems likely that you'll continue to make these very same stupid arguments. Just say so if you'd like some help understanding. It's pretty simple stuff. I learned it in science class at school when I was about eleven years old.

 

[Reality Check]

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6482854&postcount=482

You mean except for my posts?

Yes - read your post and see how vague it is.

There is an eruption of a filament followed by a mass ejection called a flare that becomes visible in LASCO at the 1:30 position, a few hours after the eruption.

There is an eruption of a filament followed by a mass ejection called a flare that becomes visible in LASCO at the 1:30 position, a few hours after the eruption.
I have no argument with that.

Except for the location, the time and the direction of the mass flow of course.

Those are all correlations. They state nothing about any causal relationship between the filament eruption and a follwing flare or CME.

I can see now why astronomers are so confused about solar atmospheric activity. Even when the cause/effect links are obvious, you bury your collective heads in the sand.

Try to read my posts: I am not an astronomer.
AFAIK: Astronomers are not confused about solar atmospheric activity. They have many scientific theories about it, many of which actually work.

There is a physical connection called mass flow between filament eruptions and mass ejections.

What is a "mass flow"? CAn you give its textbook definition?
Can you list the obseravtions of a "mass folw" between a filament eruption and a CME?

They are in fact the exact same process, only we're seeing that mass eruption "earlier" as a "filament eruption". There no physical disconnect erupting filaments and flares in space, even if there is a physical disconnect somewhere in your head.

They are in fact different processes:

• filament eruption
• flare
• CME

There is no evidence of a physical connection between erupting filaments and flares in space. There is evidence of a physical disconnect somewhere in your head, i.e. your inability to present any evidence or answer questions.

 

[Reality Check]

Outstanding questions for Michael Mozina

Just a reminder for you MM:
What is your methodology that gives you the numbers that you quote?
(12 October 2010)

Where in Birkeland's work does he describe the mechanisms behind CME?
N.B. as mentioned before this just a request for a citation.
(19 October 2010)

If we see a CME in a LASCO image can we tell what color the filament that erupted was?
IOW: What are the physical propeties of a CME associated with a dark filament that make the CME different from the CME associated with any other kind of filament.
(22 October 2010)

Michael Mozina, Please give your citations for solar Birkeland currents
(22 October 2010)

Please give your citations to the darkness of filaments being "relevant" (significant?) in terms of "mass flow prediction"
(22 October 2010)

What is your evidence for a difference in dark/bright filament eruption distribution?
(22 October 2010)

Micheal Mozina: Cite your prediction of "1 M class and 4 class flares"
(26 October 2010)

And another:
Why should we trust the interpretations of solar images by a person who has made so many mistakes in interpreting them?

 

[Perpetual Student]

Mozina's *PREDICTIONS* will provide a path for his first *NOBEL* prize. How could others on this thread be so "focused" on *METHODS,* "definitions," *MATH BUNNIES* and "evidence"? He is *DESTINED* to become the *SOLAR SAGE* of this century! You will some day tell your *GRANDCHILDREN* that you knew him.

 

[Michael Mozina]

http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/10/27/ahead_20101027_euvi_195_512.mpg

If you look at about the 2:00 position, you'll notice that a relatively *LARGE* (but directional) filament eruption took place today on the back side of the sun, big enough in fact to be clearly visible in STEREO. A few hours later, COR recorded the mass flow from that filament eruption as a highly directional flare event.

http://stereo-ssc.nascom.nasa.gov/browse/2010/10/27/ahead_20101027_cor2_512.mpg

There is a direct cause/effect link between the direction of the filament eruption and the direction of the mass flow we can observe in COR. That's because it's the same "mass".

Your position is like having a seat in the "nosebleed" section of a baseball game, with a pole in your way. Every time that the pitcher throws a pitch, it briefly goes behind a pole in your field of view, emerging from behind the pole before the catcher catches it. Since you can't see the baseball while it's behind the pole, you *IMAGINE* that the baseball as it enters the catchers mitt is not the same baseball that the pitcher threw. That's pretty much your position at this point, in spite of the directional mass flow evidence.

 

[Michael Mozina]

FYI, this is going to be look shooting fish out of a barrel. Between STEREO and SDO, we're bound to see a filament eruption from somewhere around the sun on a regular basis, even during times when EM type flare prediction isn't really an option due to low EM activity. How many times in a row do you figure that the filament eruption and the mass flows we observe in LASCO and COR will be in alignment? Do you really believe that alignment of mass flow is a pure coincidence? Where exactly do you figure that the mass in a coronal mass ejection comes from?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Mozina's *PREDICTIONS* will provide a path for his first *NOBEL* prize. How could others on this thread be so "focused" on *METHODS,* "definitions," *MATH BUNNIES* and "evidence"? He is *DESTINED* to become the *SOLAR SAGE* of this century! You will some day tell your *GRANDCHILDREN* that you knew him.

If that doesn't work out I'll just tell James Randi that I'm a psychic and I can predict solar flares and I'll collect his cash.

 

[GeeMack]

There is a direct cause/effect link between the direction of the filament eruption and the direction of the mass flow we can observe in COR. That's because it's the same "mass".

Did you read this one, Michael?...

Until you understand the logical fallacy you're using your argument is going to keep failing. And if you don't eventually catch on to the concept of cause and effect and how it works, it seems likely that you'll continue to make these very same stupid arguments. Just say so if you'd like some help understanding. It's pretty simple stuff. I learned it in science class at school when I was about eleven years old.​

Do you need some help figuring out this cause and effect concept? So far your arguments are assembled as if you're not getting it at all, not even the least little bit.

And you've ignored this one, too. If Kristian Birkeland had claimed to have a scientific, objective method for determining something and was asked to describe his method, would he have called the person asking a liar? If he didn't have a method, would he have lied and said he did?

 

[Michael Mozina]

Did you read this one, Michael?...

Until you understand the logical fallacy you're using your argument is going to keep failing. And if you don't eventually catch on to the concept of cause and effect and how it works, it seems likely that you'll continue to make these very same stupid arguments.​

I'm just trying to figure out how stupid you're going to look by the time I've pointed out about a hundred or so of these events.

Dude, you can't change physics just because you don't like it. The filament eruptions are the *SOURCE* of the *MASS* that we observe in "coronal mass ejections". You can't change scientific fact. Sooner or later you'll have to simply accept it, but knowing you that's going to take awhile.

What *IS* it with you and the liar, liar, pants on fire gig? Is that grade school nonsense all you know?

If you knew anything about solar physics, flares and CME's you'd have offered us some information by now. All you've done however is hang out in denialville. Sooner or later you'll have to accept fact. The fact is that the *MASS* in that filament is the MASS that erupts and it's the MASS that is ejected from the corona. We can even track it's path. Deal with it.​

 

[Reality Check]

There is a direct cause/effect link between the direction of the filament eruption and the direction of the mass flow we can observe in COR. That's because it's the same "mass".

There is no such thing as a "mass flow".

There is a no evidence of a cause/effect link between the direction of the filament eruption and the direction of the flare we can observe in COR. That's because you have no evidence that it is the same mass.

All we have is your interpretation of solar images, i.e. that you either

• imagine that you see that the filament becomes the material in the flare or
• assume that that the filament becomes the material in the flare.

Why should we trust the interpretations of solar images by a person who has made so many mistakes in interpreting them?