Unproven theories

[Philalethes]

2 hours ago, Maitreya said:

the theory presented

2 hours ago, Maitreya said:

Our task now is to observe the behavior of the sun and compare its behavior with Patrick's theory.

The problem is a total lack of any coherent such model. For example, the way his claims about peak SSN coinciding with average field flips completely fails for 50% of an already low sample size makes it clear that there's something seriously wrong there. Before making predictions, the model should at the very least get the postdictions right, otherwise it's proven wrong before you even start observing future data.

This is why we've been asking Patrick to both explain parts of that model which clearly don't make sense (he still hasn't explained why SC23 departs so radically from what he's saying, for example), as well as to make clear predictions about the future that can actually be tested, because so far he just keeps making extremely vague statements and constantly shifts and slips like an eel out of the grasp of any actual testability, both by changing his mind about what he actually said after the fact and by coming up with constant ad hoc explanations for why he was wrong and why he's completely correct now (until the next adjustment, of course).

[Maitreya]

1 hour ago, Philalethes said:

Проблема заключается в полном отсутствии какой-либо последовательной такой модели. Например, то, как его утверждения о пиковом SSN совпадении со средними переворотами поля полностью проваливаются для 50% и без того небольшого объема выборки, дает понять, что здесь что-то серьезно не так. Прежде чем делать прогнозы, модель должна, по крайней мере, правильно сформулировать постпредикты, в противном случае ее ошибочность будет доказана еще до того, как вы начнете наблюдать будущие данные.

 

 

• My friend, you have seen two peaks, but you have not seen a single point of contact. If the peak of the outbreak activity turned out to be forked, then it is quite reasonable to assume and then study which characters participated in provoking this peak, and compare their "weight" characteristics at a certain peak. It is clear that they will be different: so, according to Patrick's theory (actually, I also support the idea that figures in the Solar System provoke flares), different figures are involved in provoking them. In this case, I do not see any contradictions in Patrick's theory, but, on the contrary, it is confirmation that he is going the right way. Sorry for my English, my friend. I'm Russian.

   

   
•  

[hamateur 1953]

1 hour ago, Philalethes said:

The problem is a total lack of any coherent such model. For example, the way his claims about peak SSN coinciding with average field flips completely fails for 50% of an already low sample size makes it clear that there's something seriously wrong there. Before making predictions, the model should at the very least get the postdictions right, otherwise it's proven wrong before you even start observing future data.

This is why we've been asking Patrick to both explain parts of that model which clearly don't make sense (he still hasn't explained why SC23 departs so radically from what he's saying, for example), as well as to make clear predictions about the future that can actually be tested, because so far he just keeps making extremely vague statements and constantly shifts and slips like an eel out of the grasp of any actual testability, both by changing his mind about what he actually said after the fact and by coming up with constant ad hoc explanations for why he was wrong and why he's completely correct now (until the next adjustment, of course).

Very well said @Philalethes It isn’t necessarily to derogate his theory or malign him in any way,  we are simply attempting to get a coherent response.  True, I myself have been very persistent at this, but not without reason.  Many of us ( myself included) are here because we enjoy it.  

[Philalethes]

19 minutes ago, Maitreya said:

My friend, you have seen two peaks, but you have not seen a single point of contact. If the peak of the outbreak activity turned out to be forked, then it is quite reasonable to assume and then study which characters participated in provoking this peak, and compare their "weight" characteristics at a certain peak.

Fact is that we still don't have a clear idea of what exactly causes a cycle to have one or two major peaks, and the shapes of Solar cycles can be quite irregular. It has been hypothesized that it has to do with hemispheric synchronization, but there are many indications that this is far from the whole picture. The evidence we do have suggests that it's primarily due to internal dynamics rather than external influences like that of planets. Until there's any clear evidence to the contrary there's little reason to believe otherwise.

19 minutes ago, Maitreya said:

It is clear that they will be different: so, according to Patrick's theory (actually, I also support the idea that figures in the Solar System provoke flares), different figures are involved in provoking them.

If by "figures" you're referring to the various planets and smaller objects, let me assure you, there's no shortage in the literature of attempts at finding connections between their positions and Solar activity; it has even been discussed previously in this thread, and in many other older threads too. I enjoy investigating such models myself, and would love to find evidence of clear signals from planets on Solar activity (I also look into it a bit on my own). Problem is just that there's a dearth of evidence for any clear connections there, and most of the evidence finding a link is, as is typically to be expected, only of very slight signals and correlations.

As such it's simply not enough to just say that there must be a connection because it feels like it has to be that way. One has to at least make a coherent model which both predicts future observations and explains past ones, and the problem here is that the model does none of the above, since it's not coherent, fails to explain elementary features of the few past Solar cycles it's applied to, and fails to make any clear predictions about the future except for a few failed ones that have already been hand-waved away.

Edited April 5 by Philalethes
typo

[Maitreya]

7 minutes ago, Philalethes said:

Таким образом, недостаточно просто сказать, что должна быть связь, потому что кажется, что так и должно быть. Нужно, по крайней мере, создать согласованную модель, которая одновременно предсказывает будущие наблюдения и объясняет прошлые

Isn't that what Patrick wants to do now? He does not claim that his formulas already have a finished version, that they will not be improved by him, clarified right now, during observations of the current solar cycle. The problem is that already at this stage we all want to ban this theory, without even giving it a chance to crystallize to perfection and a working version. I remember very well, my friend, what bullying Elon Musk was subjected to in the first TV interviews, he looked ready to cry because his ideas were openly mocked. But how is he now, dear friend? He implemented these ideas. And at the moment, I have firm confidence in the correctness of Patrick's train of thought. Let's just observe, point out inconsistencies somewhere (Patrick himself spoke and asked us about this). Truth is born in polemics, dialogue, my friend.🙏

[Philalethes]

8 minutes ago, Maitreya said:

Isn't that what Patrick wants to do now? He does not claim that his formulas already have a finished version, that they will not be improved by him, clarified right now, during observations of the current solar cycle.

First of all, he time and again parades around his "final theory", so he's definitely not that interested in doing that. Secondly, like I said, there is no coherent theory in the first place, and his claims don't even account for observations that have already been made in the past. There's no point in trying to predict future phenomena with a model if you can't even explain the past ones that you've already observed. I implore you to read what I wrote a bit more carefully and to hopefully realize that what you're trying to defend here has virtually no scientific basis.

11 minutes ago, Maitreya said:

I remember very well, my friend, what bullying Elon Musk was subjected to in the first TV interviews, he looked ready to cry because his ideas were openly mocked.

There are far better examples to pick from, such as e.g. Wegener, Semmelweis, and Boltzmann, or perhaps closer to the field of study we're interested in here, Birkeland. They were all scientists whose ideas were largely rejected and even ridiculed, only to become accepted only in old age or well after they were dead.

But using that as an excuse is not a workable strategy, because for every scientific maverick who was mocked for their correct ideas, there are thousands of crackpots whose ideas are just total nonsense. Just because some right ideas are mocked does not mean that all ideas that are mocked are right, thinking that would be a classic logical fallacy known as affirming the consequent (the "converse fallacy", P -> Q does not mean Q -> P).

As Carl Sagan famously said:

Quote

«But the fact that some geniuses were laughed at does not imply that all who are laughed at are geniuses. They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown.»

[hamateur 1953]

This just might apply in the present tense @Philalethes I am waiting on NRC to submit today’s adjusted flux. We should know in a few hours.  

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

I have spent several years working on deciphering the polar fields. Rather than asking questions that can be found on my Researchgate page, I suggest taking the time to explore it.

1. Astronomers use the wrong math to calculate the average polar field

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/367021425_The_Anti-Phase_Solution_for_the_Average_Polar_Magnetic_Field

2. The 10.7 solar flux and sunspots can be calculated from the polar fields. Therefore i am so sure we already reached maximum:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/348686960_Polar_Field_Strength_107_cm_Solar_Radio_Flux

3. A new mathematical-physics principle is needed to calculate the polar field strength. How you calculate the southern and northern polar field is also explained with nice figures and graphs!

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333445984_2_Solutions_for_the_Axial_Dipole_Field_In_Phase_and_in_Anti-Phase

4. I CAN'T USE THIS IN PEER REVIEW BECAUSE of 1

5. According to astronomers the UNFILTERED FIELDS may NOT be used. You may only use the FILTERED FIELDS. Wrong of course... but hey we are not as smart as they are🤪

6. THERE ARE DOZENS OF FAULTS IN THE POLAR FIELD MEASUREMENTS IN THE PERIOD 2001 TILL 2003. So it is hard to make a conclusion for cycle 23!!!

 

Published in May 2019.

According to

" First of all, he time and again parades around his "final theory", so he's definitely not that interested in doing that. Secondly, like I said, there is no coherent theory in the first place, and his claims don't even account for observations that have already been made in the past. "🫢

Right...

So I have no theory?

Can you explain what this is?🤪

No observations in the past?🙃😂

Dear moderators is there not a punishment for blatant falsehoods?

Sunspot cycles 21 – 24 with the average unfiltered magnetic polar field strength in absolute value (blue) and the 13-month smoothed monthly total sunspot number (red):

Figure 5. Cycles 21 – 24. All cycles are relatively in line with the observed cycle strength, considering the fact that the polar field strength is extremely difficult to measure and can vary considerably (the average polar field strength was multiplied with 2.0).  May 1976 – May 2018. Source: WSO; WDC-SILSO.

 

*Remark: The data from 2001-2003 (=cycle 23) are considered “bad” due to measurement failures and explain why the duration of the strength is smaller than in the other cycles.

Edited April 5 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[Philalethes]

41 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

So it is hard to make a conclusion for cycle 23!!!

41 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

*Remark: The data from 2001-2003 (=cycle 23) are considered “bad” due to measurement failures and explain why the duration of the strength is smaller than in the other cycles.

Nice hand-waving. But given that it constitutes one of only four cycles in the data at hand I'm afraid I must insist.

It's also funny how that first article still says "Solar Max has Passed January 2023", as a testament to confidently being wrong (of course this was due to some "error" that has now been "corrected", like we'll see happen again and again).

Oh well, I guess that's all I'm going to bother with this for now, this clearly isn't going anywhere. Can't say I'm surprised.

[Maitreya]

14 hours ago, Philalethes said:

Прежде всего, он снова и снова выставляет напоказ свою "окончательную теорию", так что он определенно не очень заинтересован в этом. Во-вторых, как я уже сказал, во-первых, нет никакой последовательной теории, и его утверждения даже не учитывают наблюдения, которые уже были сделаны в прошлом. Нет смысла пытаться предсказать будущие явления с помощью модели, если вы даже не можете объяснить прошлые явления, которые вы уже наблюдали. Я умоляю вас прочитать то, что я написал, немного внимательнее и, надеюсь, понять, что то, что вы пытаетесь здесь защитить, практически не имеет научной основы.

My friend, you are entitled to have your opinion on this matter, but I also stand by my conviction. Have a nice day, dear friend.🙏

[Parabolic]

34 minutes ago, Maitreya said:

My friend, you are entitled to have your opinion on this matter, but I also stand by my conviction. Have a nice day, dear friend.🙏

What part of that was opinion? The actions he describes did occur multiple times in this forum. I was interested in attempting to learn the ideas he proposed, but I immediately withdrew after reading the tone he took up with others. I began to dismiss his theory all together because of his attitude towards members who initially were trying to use his formula honestly or when they challenged his "predictions". Who would actually announce their perfect formula can calculate everything, then proceed to tell us to do the math, and finally stating it would take several dozen minds inorder to solve it? I could give more examples but in the end this discussion has become counter productive. This is the one and only time I'll chime in during this specific conversation.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

2 uren geleden, Parabolic zei:

What part of that was opinion? The actions he describes did occur multiple times in this forum. I was interested in attempting to learn the ideas he proposed, but I immediately withdrew after reading the tone he took up with others. I began to dismiss his theory all together because of his attitude towards members who initially were trying to use his formula honestly or when they challenged his "predictions". Who would actually announce their perfect formula can calculate everything, then proceed to tell us to do the math, and finally stating it would take several dozen minds inorder to solve it? I could give more examples but in the end this discussion has become counter productive. This is the one and only time I'll chime in during this specific conversation.

I admit I was a bit hasty in January last year, but…

1. It has the highest observed flux till now

2. It has the second highest adjusted flux

3. It has the second highest 1K  SN

4. It has the second highest 2K SN

5. The predicted 13-month smoothed max was May… Currently June

If you look at all the other predictions from astronomers… can’t say it is that bad.

There was a fault in my formula that was corrected in peer review. Otherwise It would have been almost perfect.

Space X failed several times. I will also. Need a large team to calculate everything

Edited April 6 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[Jesterface23]

21 minutes ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Space X failed several times. I will also. Need a large team to calculate everything

This will always give two options to complete something. A team or time.

[hamateur 1953]

Since my original post caused me to receive my first busted heart, I elected to remove it myself.    It wasn’t In character for me anyway.  I dislike heated exchanges as they are to my mind somewhat childish and immature. Nuff said I guess. 

Edited April 7 by hamateur 1953
Post removed by originator. Reasons stated later

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

3 minuten geleden, hamateur 1953 zei:

We will never know why you decided to make that Solar Max has passed declaration, Patrick. Clearly you didn’t consult Jan Alvestad. Who at about that time had projected a maximum in November of 2023.  About 142 if my memory serves me correctly.  
 

As already said I had put a wrong number in my formula and that screwed my maximum. Seen during peer review.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

AR 3633 could be a candidate for my April 2-3 sunspot… If true, than unfortunately the most intense activity will be on the limb and the Farside…

Edited April 6 by Patrick P.A. Geryl

[Archmonoth]

On 4/3/2024 at 1:32 AM, Maitreya said:

....Jupiter is a marker of the beginning and end of solar cycles as the most massive planet, The time deviations are due to the influence of the orbital cycles of other planets.....

 

The influences have and are predicted and modeled. We know what influences they have, at least gravitationally. 

On 4/3/2024 at 1:32 AM, Maitreya said:

 

Or will we continue to guess at the coffee grounds, forgetting about the interdependence of all the "characters" of the solar system, my friends?...

Recognizing the forces and their relationships is important. Jupiter and the entire solar system are part of the system which contains the Sun. There is no doubt they are part of each other. However, the activity of the solar cycle is more dynamic than the gravitational relationships.

 

There is magnetic turbulence, internal dynamics, and all sorts of plasma behaviors to investigate. 

 

I mean no offense, but you aren't offering anything new, other than a vague connection between a planet and a star. 

 

 

On 4/5/2024 at 6:38 AM, Maitreya said:

I have firm confidence in the correctness of Patrick's train of thought. Let's just observe, point out inconsistencies somewhere (Patrick himself spoke and asked us about this). Truth is born in polemics, dialogue, my friend.🙏

Quietism serves no one. He has predicted a ton of things, and there is nothing to his method. 

Edited April 8 by Archmonoth

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

40 minuten geleden, Archmonoth zei:

The influences have and are predicted and modeled. We know what influences they have, at least gravitationally. 

Recognizing the forces and their relationships is important. Jupiter and the entire solar system are part of the system which contains the Sun. There is no doubt they are part of each other. However, the activity of the solar cycle is more dynamic than the gravitational relationships.

 

There is magnetic turbulence, internal dynamics, and all sorts of plasma behaviors to investigate. 

 

I mean no offense, but you aren't offering anything new, other than a vague connection between a planet and a star. 

 

 

Quietism serves no one. He has predicted a ton of things, and there is nothing to his method. 

So you are claiming our peer reviewed paper is bullshit in which we did beat the NASA prediction?

Sounds a pretty outrageous claim…

[Maitreya]

27 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

Я не хочу вас обидеть, но вы не предлагаете ничего нового, кроме смутной связи между планетой и звездой.

OK, dear friend. A vague connection, you say? Then let's put it this way, I predict based on my own theory that the peak power of the 25th cycle will be in 2025, from January 14 to February 26, 2025. Shall we watch, dear friend? If everything goes as I said, I will explain to you the essence of my theory. Have a nice day, dear friend.🙏

[Archmonoth]

1 hour ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

So you are claiming our peer reviewed paper is bullshit in which we did beat the NASA prediction?

Sounds a pretty outrageous claim…

I wish I could offer more in reply, but there is little to comment on.

 

1 hour ago, Maitreya said:

OK, dear friend. A vague connection, you say? Then let's put it this way, I predict based on my own theory that the peak power of the 25th cycle will be in 2025, from January 14 to February 26, 2025. Shall we watch, dear friend? If everything goes as I said, I will explain to you the essence of my theory. Have a nice day, dear friend.🙏

Sure thing, and from the prediction result, what kind of information are you going to evaluate? 

 

Revealing a grand design from the vacuum of a single mind is rare. I look forward to whatever you reveal. 

Edited April 8 by Archmonoth

[Maitreya]

29 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

Я хотел бы предложить больше в ответ, но тут мало что можно прокомментировать.

 

Конечно, и исходя из результата прогноза, какую информацию вы собираетесь оценивать?

 

Раскрыть грандиозный замысел из вакуума единого разума - редкость. Я с нетерпением жду всего, что вы раскроете.

No problem, my friend, right now you are communicating with Maitreya, the Avatar of the 5th Buddha (partly this is a joke). Let's meet at the end of February 2025, okay? Then we will have something to discuss. Have a nice day, dear friend.🙏

[hamateur 1953]

I have a prediction ( unproven at present) That a total eclipse of the sun will enter from  the Pacific Ocean cross Mexico, USA and Canada before leaving over the Atlantic Ocean 

Edited April 8 by hamateur 1953
Typo

[Archmonoth]

11 hours ago, Maitreya said:

 Then we will have something to discuss. Have a nice day, dear friend.🙏

We can always discuss the information you are expecting from the prediction right now. 

 

Predicting an event with prior frequency information is fairly easy. We already know the frequency of the solar cycles. They vary by 1-3 years, but 8-11 years is typical for a solar cycle. 

 

So, what are you predicting for Feb 2025? Peak power? How do determine peak? By a flare? SSN? What are you measuring? What threshold of spectral flux is considered "peak"? 

 

From your prediction, we wouldn't know if it was peak in Feb 2025, we might know later in 2025. Just like with Patrick, you need hindsight to evaluate predictions. 

 

This thread/space on the forum is for unproven theories, so please show me your theory. Patrick has tried to show me, but without progress. For example, in his model, planetary alignments are part of this prediction modeling yet has no measurement or method for determining what planets (or asteroids are used.) He made up an arbitrary method, with limited information about planet location. 

 

A 1–5-degree difference in angle at some of the distances of planets will be wrong for 1/2 a year. A difference in 1 degree has a location difference of MILLIONS of miles/kilometers when trying to say something is in alignment. It's a crude and inarticulate method and offers no reduction in uncertainty nor any increase in clarity. He also willfully ignores the internal dynamics like the Tachocline: Tachocline - Wikipedia (He also predicted an apocalypse for 2012 and has since been trying to return to the spotlight.)

 

This is only my opinion from 20+ pages of interaction with Patrick, and I encourage you to see how his method works.

 

For me, ignoring the internal dynamics of the Sun is the equivalent of a Flat-earther, (but for the Sun), since it dismisses and ignores a very large amount of current (and testable) knowledge.  

 

Please feel free to add, discuss any of your grand designs before Feb 2025. Discussion requires some common knowledge, and in your attempts to explain, perhaps we can find common words/ideas. 

Edited April 8 by Archmonoth

[hamateur 1953]

An apocalypse??  Gee let me check the historical records @Archmonoth  While I am at it, perhaps I will do an internet search for @Patrick P.A. Geryl In a few European countries. There may be  more than one though, but I think his Nationality is Belgian, later, Mike.   Edit: to be completely honest several members have contacted me regarding Patrick and I have contacted @Sam Warfel regarding the wisdom of publicly posting what I have learned.  Since Sam is smack in the Umbra and a gentleman, lets all chill and give him the time he needs to relax. No big deal… let me just add this observation: He is very intelligent, of this I have no doubt, a former chemist indeed and perhaps an author of several books.  This dude is smart.  Anything can happen to a man.  I do not wish that he suffer ill fortune.  Just a bit more forthcoming, perhaps. 

Mike/Hagrid 

Edited April 8 by hamateur 1953
Integrity

[Maitreya]

8 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

Пожалуйста, не стесняйтесь добавлять, обсуждать любой из ваших грандиозных проектов до февраля 2025 года. Обсуждение требует некоторых общих знаний, и в ваших попытках объяснить, возможно, мы сможем найти общие слова / идеи.

A very reasonable answer, dear friend, thank you for that. But let me keep my theory in the category of incognito for now, until I confirm the preliminary predictions I have made myself. So far, I can announce the maximum capacity of the solar cycle according to my calculations similar to 1859. I'm sorry, dear friend, if you might have noticed: I'm a man of few words. Therefore, now I don't see much point in checking and discussing my theory until I can verify its correctness myself. Have a nice day, dear friend - as usual, in my performance, this expression means that I say goodbye to you in terms of communication on the topic of my theory. I can only give a link to the astronomers whose ideas I prefer today.: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11207-021-01822-4

🙏