CME's, active regions and high energy flares

Perpetual Student said:
Since I am not following this thread on an ongoing basis and I still have Mozina on "ignore" status, I have the this question: Has he finally revealed to the world the details of his quantitative objective method for **PREDICTING** CMEs.
Click to expand...


No, but he does predict in Post #848 that his "mistakes" will become public triumphs; you can mark his words. He predicts that EU theory (a not even remotely scientifically supported hodgepodge of crackpot fantasies) is eventually going to replace most astronomy theories. He predicts that Birkeland's solar model (which doesn't even exist!) will replace standard solar theory. In his opinion it probably will happen in his lifetime due to the enormous dedication and hard efforts of the folks that designed, built, launched, and operate various solar satellites including GOES, Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace, RHESSI, STEREO, Hinode, SDO, etc. (even though none of those folks has ever expressed a shred of agreement, or even so much as a passing interest in any of his claims).

But no, Michael has not yet offered a description of his quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs. We are currently satisfied that no such method exists, the original claim to having such a method was fabricated, and that any continued arguments to the contrary are untrue.
 
GeeMack said:
No, but he does predict in Post #848 that his "mistakes" will become public triumphs; you can mark his words. He predicts that EU theory (a not even remotely scientifically supported hodgepodge of crackpot fantasies) is eventually going to replace most astronomy theories. He predicts that Birkeland's solar model (which doesn't even exist!) will replace standard solar theory. In his opinion it probably will happen in his lifetime due to the enormous dedication and hard efforts of the folks that designed, built, launched, and operate various solar satellites including GOES, Yohkoh, SOHO, Trace, RHESSI, STEREO, Hinode, SDO, etc. (even though none of those folks has ever expressed a shred of agreement, or even so much as a passing interest in any of his claims).

But no, Michael has not yet offered a description of his quantitative objective method for "predicting" CMEs. We are currently satisfied that no such method exists, the original claim to having such a method was fabricated, and that any continued arguments to the contrary are untrue.
Click to expand...

That's unfortunate! It looks like there will be no acceptance speech. I guess I'll have to cancel my trip to Oslo.
 
Todays quantified guesses....

FYI, for anyone who is actually following along with the quantification process, DF00002 has moved higher into the atmosphere, it's moving material "faster" today than it did yesterday, and it's experienced several small partial eruptions where it connects up with 1123 over the past 24 hours. Today it has about a 30 percent chance of a full filament eruption and 72ish percent chance of a partial eruption. DF00001 is technically categorized the same as yesterday however there was one small "brightening" along the filament yesterday and a very small mass discharge where it connects to 1126. It has the same odds of a full filament eruption as it did yesterday, but a 5 percent increase in terms of the likelihood of a partial filament eruption today compared to yesterday. Those 'brightening patterns" you see where the filament connects up to the active regions "count" in terms of filament eruption quantification techniques.

Both of these dark filaments connect up with 1126, but DF00002 connects active region 1126 with 1123. They are ELECTROmagnetically interacting through the dark filament. The dark filament is essentially a "dense stream of moving charged particles", a "Birkeland current" that moves energy from one region to another. The more energy they carry, the more unstable they become. The active regions tend to "light up" the ends of the filament where the current "flows".
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Today it has about a 30 percent chance of a full filament eruption and 72ish percent chance of a partial eruption.
Click to expand...
Michael Mozina: Can you tell us how you calcuated the 30 percent chance?

What number is "72ish"? Is it between"72kindof" and "72Iguess"?

Please, please do tell us that you guessed :jaw-dropp !
 
Michael Mozina said:
The dark filament is essentially a "dense stream of moving charged particles", a "Birkeland current" that moves energy from one region to another.
Click to expand...
All filaments are essentially extremely thin streams of moving charged particles (ions and electrons).
There is no Birkeland current involved.
 
Reality Check said:
All filaments are essentially extremely thin streams of moving charged particles (ions and electrons).
Click to expand...

Agreed.

There is no Birkeland current involved.
Click to expand...

Of course there is! Holy Cow. That's *THE* core issue where you and the mainstream drop the ball. Alfven refers to them as "circuits" and all you see are "magnetic lines' (oh ya, and they involve "current flow" except we never mention that). That's why "magnetic reconnection" will forever be a "pseudoscience" too. You're dumbing down a "current flow" to a "magnetic line"!

The whole reason the magnetic fields form is *BECAUSE OF* that "current flow". The magnetic field "pinches" the mass into a moving spiral of energy, a moving "filament" of "current flow". Alfven *EXPLICITLY* compares these processes to "circuits", wiring diagrams and the whole bit. All you see are "magnetism", when in fact it is all "electro(emphasis on electricity)magnetism that drives these process. The moving charged particles are form of "current flow" and they form "Birkeland currents" of dense "circuits" of moving, flowing current flow that is "pinched" into a Birkeland current.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birkeland_current

300px-Magnetic_rope.png


You can even watch the dark filament "winding" around as the hot plasma flows "downstream" over time in the recent SDO filament eruption images that were first posted by spaceweather.com.


http://www.thesurfaceofthesun.com/filaments/filamenteruption.mpg
 
Last edited:
Reality Check said:
All filaments are essentially extremely thin streams of moving charged particles (ions and electrons).
There is no Birkeland current involved.
Click to expand...


Michael, as Reality Check said, there is no Birkeland current involved. Apparently you don't understand what a Birkeland current actually is, nor do you understand the physics that make your ridiculous conjecture impossible.
 
Michael Mozina said:
The whole reason the magnetic fields form is *BECAUSE OF* that "current flow". The magnetic field "pinches" the mass into a moving spiral of energy, a moving "filament" of "current flow". Alfven *EXPLICITLY* compares these processes to "circuits", wiring diagrams and the whole bit. All you see are "magnetism", when in fact it is all "electro(emphasis on electricity)magnetism that drives these process. The moving charged particles are form of "current flow" and they form "Birkeland currents" of dense "circuits" of moving, flowing current flow that is "pinched" into a Birkeland current.
Click to expand...


Your qualifications to understand solar physics have been repeatedly challenged, and you haven't demonstrated that you possess any such qualifications. All your gibberish above is nonsense, a wholly unqualified assertion. There is absolutely no scientific support for your crackpot electric Sun arguments.
 
Reality Check said:
Michael Mozina: Can you tell us how you calcuated the 30 percent chance?
Click to expand...

Essentially it's based on it's categorization as LF-2A-HF. They tend to blow on average about 30 percent of the time and typically last on average a little longer than three days before becoming unstable and erupting up (or down!). DF00002 is already 'migrating' to the north. I'm not sure how it will play out just yet.

What number is "72ish"? Is it between"72kindof" and "72Iguess"?
Click to expand...

Quite honestly there is a somewhat subjective element when filament near the active region is just "brightening" vs. a type of "mini eruption/partial eruption' of mass. It's not always easy to say one way or the other. Sometimes I have to pick between them as was the case when figuring out the likelihood of a partial flare on that filament. I think I'll just start rounding to 5% because frankly it's a small data set at this point anyway.

The important qualities of a filament besides the size ("LF" category) are the number of connections is has to active regions, in this case 2 (2A), the height in relationship to edge of the visibly ionized corona, and the speed of the material in the filament (H(high)F(fast). That's basically the categorization process I'm using. I'm also looking at the number of flares in the previous 24 hours, the number of instances of filament "brightening" and a few other features when determining the likelihood of a partial eruption.

DF00001 didn't change categories so it's basic full eruption potential is unchanged, but I did see some brightening at it's connection to 1126 over the past 24 hours, so it has a slightly higher probability of a partial mass eruption in my method.
 
GeeMack said:
Your qualifications to understand solar physics have been repeatedly challenged,
Click to expand...

What does this have to do with me? Alfven's ability to understand solar physics surpasses us both in terms of his ability to express himself mathematically. He *consistently* called magnetic reconnection 'pseudoscience" and consistently referred to those "lines" as "circuits", wiring diagrams and all.

Quit personalizing and hijacking the conversation.
 
Michael Mozina said:
What does this have to do with me?
Click to expand...


Your attempted explanations are nonsense. Your lack of qualifications to understand solar physics twisted into arguments to support your claims result in simple gibberish. Your misrepresentation of legitimate science to manufacture bogus arguments to support crackpot "theories" belongs to you alone.

Alfven's ability to understand solar physics surpasses us both in terms of his ability to express himself mathematically. He *consistently* called magnetic reconnection 'pseudoscience" and consistently referred to those "lines" as "circuits", wiring diagrams and all.
Click to expand...


Again your qualifications are challenged, and you have not shown that you are qualified to understand, interpret, or communicate to other people what Alfvén wrote. Trying to connect Alfvén's research or opinions to the crackpot electric Sun is nonsense and a dishonest argument.

Quit personalizing and hijacking the conversation.
Click to expand...


Quit blaming dead scientists for the failed nonsense that the crackpot electric Sun screwballs are trying to peddle.
 
Reality Check said:
All filaments are essentially extremely thin streams of moving charged particles (ions and electrons).
Click to expand...

Actually RC, the "dark filaments" are not necessarily "thin" either. They are in fact "thick" and "dense" compared to "bright", coronal loop filaments around active regions . Bright filaments are relatively "thin" in comparison to dark filaments.
 
Michael Mozina said:
Essentially it's based on it's categorization as LF-2A-HF.
Click to expand...
That is not quite what I asked so I will make it clearer:
Can you cite the literature containing the statistics that you used to calculate the 30% figure?

Or maybe there is no literature: Can you post the raw data that you collected and the statistics that you derived and then to used calculate the 30% figure?

Also post the definition of the filament classification mentioned above. The only one that I have read of is the Tang and Tandberg-Hanssen scheme but that is fairly old (1987) and has single character codes.

ETA: From what you posted it looks like the classification is your personal opinion about the size, number of "connections" and eyeballing the speed.
 
Last edited:
Michael Mozina said:
Actually RC, the "dark filaments" are not necessarily "thin" either. They are in fact "thick" and "dense" compared to "bright", coronal loop filaments around active regions . Bright filaments are relatively "thin" in comparison to dark filaments.
Click to expand...
Actually, MM, this is an unsupported assertion from you yet again.

I have been able to find no literature on physical differences between bright and dark filaments. If you have then cite them to support your assertion.

You are probably under the impression that dark filaments are dark because they are dense. That is wrong. They are dark because they are imaged against a brighter surface.
 
GeeMack said:
Your .... Your....you,...your....you ....you
Click to expand...

That's all you ever want to talk about....me...me....me. You're like my own little personal online stalker.

I don't need to speak for Alfven, he did that himself on many occasions and I've posted his statements on these topics many times now. If you don't understand the meaning of "pseudoscience", look it up. If you don't understand what a "Bennett Pinch" is, look it up. Those were his words, not mine, and he consistently held those positions up till the day he died!

Stop hijacking the thread and stop going below the belt. If you aren't interested in my explanations when I hand them to you on a silver platter, what can I do for you? Why are you here anyway if you have no desire to hear my answers?
 
Michael Mozina said:
Of course there is! Holy Cow. That's *THE* core issue where you and the mainstream drop the ball.
Click to expand...
Of course there is not! Holy Cow.
That's *THE* core issue where you drop the ball.
Birkeland currents by definition are planetary phenomena, especially around the Earth. Some authors extend this definition to include general space plasmas.
No authors (AFAIK and you have given no evidence for this) extend the definition to stellar plasmas.

Michael Mozina said:
Alfven refers to them as "circuits"
Click to expand...
No he did not.
Stop lying about what Alfven stated and cite where he refered to Birkeland currents on the Sun.

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


Try these papers:
No mention of Birkeland currents. No citations to Birkeland.

Michael Mozina said:
You can even watch the dark filament "winding" around as the hot plasma flows "downstream" over time in the recent SDO filament eruption images that were first posted by spaceweather.com.
Click to expand...
That is what plasma does :jaw-dropp! It winds around magnetic field lines as it moves. That is not a Birkeland current. That is "I see bunnies in the clouds" logic.


Will Michael Mozina ever retract his libelous statements about SolarMonitor?
(10 November 2010: 9 days and counting)
 
Michael Mozina said:
I don't need to speak for Alfven, he did that himself on many occasions and I've posted his statements on these topics many times now.
Click to expand...
This has been explained to you many times before but once more into the ignorance breach :):
What you are doing is the logical fallacy of argument from authority.
Basically you have decided that anything that Alfven said has to be correct because he is Alfven and it fits your personal prejudices.

You have forgootten some simple facts:
  • Alfven was human. He could and did make mistakes, e.g. his theory of Plasma Cosmology that was ruled out by observations
    (N.B. not the current crank plasma cosmology).
  • That remark was made decades ago about the state of the science at the time. Science progresses.
 
Reality Check said:
This has been explained to you many times before but once more into the ignorance breach :):
What you are doing is the logical fallacy of argument from authority.
Basically you have decided that anything that Alfven said has to be correct because he is Alfven and it fits your personal prejudices.
Click to expand...

That's just a silly statement from my perspective since I chose a different solar model than the one that Alfven used. I personally prefer Birkeland's solar approach over Alfven's solar theories. ;)

IMO your collective love of 'pseudoscience' hasn't progressed an inch since the day Alfven died. It's still more of the same tired old "Oh look how good it works on the computer simulation, we don't need to "test" it in the lab". All the MR experiments used "current flow" to make them work in the lab. No current flow, no flowing filaments, and no "magnetic/circuit reconnection". To this very day, you collectively cannot even explain what is "physically" unique about "magnetic reconnection' that is distinct from ordinary induction and/or ordinary particle collisions in a current sheet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom