Unproven theories

[hamateur 1953]

Springer is at least of pretty good repute so far in the USA. 

[Maitreya]

16 minutes ago, hamateur 1953 said:

Springer, по крайней мере, пока пользуется довольно хорошей репутацией в США.

Thank you, my friend. Before "dissecting" the Sun like a frog, I prefer to study and eliminate any external influence from the processes taking place inside it. And only then do I look for something, digging into the insides of the Sun, when I am sure that everything that can influence from the outside has already been taken into account, and what cannot explain the external influence belongs only to its nature.

Thank you again, my friend.🙏

[hamateur 1953]

I may disagree with you, but have respect for your integrity.  Mike/Hagrid 

oh yeah. Hagrid is a male feline attack cat as we call them in the USA. Tuxedo Cat.  Try Wikipedia. Haha. Later 🐈‍⬛

[Archmonoth]

38 minutes ago, Maitreya said:

Thank you, my friend. Before "dissecting" the Sun like a frog, I prefer to study and eliminate any external influence from the processes taking place inside it.

This doesn't make any sense. You are studying a body without looking inside? You are studying a planet without looking inside? You are studying a car... without looking inside? 

 

I doubt you have anything substantial. 

Edited April 9 by Archmonoth

[Maitreya]

5 minutes ago, Archmonoth said:

Сомневаюсь, что у вас есть что-то существенное.

My friend, it's your right to doubt. Have a nice day.🙏

[Christopher Shriver]

On 4/4/2024 at 11:47 PM, Jesterface23 said:

Sorry, already used it to buy a 9.25" telescope.

I've been inspired to build my own out of PVC and eBay lenses after seeing the cost-of-entry, lol

As for the biological metaphor in discussion above: Science requires many "stages of applied methodology" associated with a concept, for that to then be accepted by the general community, the public, and even historically - religious states.

I wonder if the person above is simply referencing a stage of stellar astrophysical observation, or is more simply referring to the arbitrary Euclidean depth they have chosen to focus their studies of the Sun upon. That shan't be used in any sensible personal criticism of another enthusiast or observer as it is a completely arbitrary choice to study X phenomena at Y altitude/radius; have at it, but let's not pretend one thing is more important than another, when fully arbitrary.

I would accept a sensible argument on the practical limitations of observations through the various EM, Radio, X-Ray, and other classical interferences, looking at the surface and beyond it, developing historical periodicity benchmarks, and collecting any "uncontaminated samples" of something so magmatic, energetic, and hellish. Of course, physics demands that we supersede these practical limitations and derive as much useful evidence from our instruments as we can.

In short, cause-and-effect relationships form the most logical framework for someone just getting into cosmological, astrophysical, etc. ventures. We're all at some distance from where we began to study, to widely varying degrees.

Edit: I think I see why my writing is regularly compared to AI. I had internalized ChatGPT a while ago due to my competitive nature, and therefore reference its syntax as the most digestible format for what I communicate. I have not used it since it gained initial hype and refuse to use AI to assist in writing this - I seek to use language as our ancestors did in the classical era to communicate verbose and relatively enormous ideas to one another, not inscribe my writing with cryptographic signaling/messaging as AI does.

Edited April 9 by Christopher Shriver
Self-critical reflection

[Archmonoth]

9 hours ago, Christopher Shriver said:

As for the biological metaphor in discussion above: Science requires many "stages of applied methodology" associated with a concept, for that to then be accepted by the general community, the public, and even historically - religious states.

The barrier in science you are describing (as having a required and accepted methodology) was a limit in accessibility and knowledge for many years.

 

While it is relatively unknown, there is a holistic and complementary language to science. This Theory is called Systems Theory, and it's a description of systems, issues, boundaries, entropy, all sorts of language for describing interactions and relationships between forces and spheres of science. Systems theory - Wikipedia

 

9 hours ago, Christopher Shriver said:

 Of course, physics demands that we supersede these practical limitations and derive as much useful evidence from our instruments as we can.

Evidence is accumulated from experimentation, but knowledge and even information requires a context/framing for understanding the idea. This is 100% true in all science. Prior information, context and understanding are required at every step. Without the context and prior knowledge, understanding is reduced to data collection and speculation. (Non-context information is noise)

 

9 hours ago, Christopher Shriver said:

In short, cause-and-effect relationships form the most logical framework for someone just getting into cosmological, astrophysical, etc. ventures. We're all at some distance from where we began to study, to widely varying degrees.

I agree, but the cause/effect relationship can be very limiting for large and complex system (like the Sun) and due to limited information (no satellite on the far side of the Sun) we have to examine the information holistically and within the context of a Solar System, not a single object acting in a vacuum. 

 

9 hours ago, Christopher Shriver said:

Edit: I think I see why my writing is regularly compared to AI. I had internalized ChatGPT a while ago due to my competitive nature, and therefore reference its syntax as the most digestible format for what I communicate.

No worries, I have the same experience occasionally. Also, competition is the fastest way to learn without a foundation of common knowledge of a system. (My opinion) 

 

For some brief background on Systems Theory, a single person brought a bunch of scientists together to come up with an inter-disciplinary language called the Macy conferences: Macy conferences - Wikipedia

 

From these conventions, major ideas emerged; process and cybernetic management, current computer science, and Chaos Theory. This was due to the use of the Monte Carlo Simulation and the shift to multi-valued logic.  Monte Carlo method - Wikipedia

"Monte Carlo methods are widely used in various fields of science, engineering, and mathematics, such as physics, chemistry, biology, statistics, artificial intelligence, finance, and cryptography. They have also been applied to social sciences, such as sociology, psychology, and political science. Monte Carlo methods have been recognized as one of the most important and influential ideas of the 20th century, and they have enabled many scientific and technological breakthroughs."

 

Regardless, please message me if you want to talk more about those ideas. I thought you might enjoy this thought/idea which can adapt to the extraction methodology of Science, or perhaps I am reading into your post too much  

Edited April 9 by Archmonoth

[Christopher Shriver]

2 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

Chaos Theory

This kept me engaged in science for many years - outright distracted, even. 

2 hours ago, Archmonoth said:

Macy conferences

I have no clue how I've never heard about this, apart from its deprecation and perceived threat to national security from a secretive, paranoid government at the time. I wonder if that's still a hill to climb or if we should still watch our back for acting even remotely capable of adding two large numbers in our head.

Currently tired, and will have to read the comment over again to respond properly.

Edited April 9 by Christopher Shriver

[Christopher Shriver]

Only updating the topic to respond to @Archmonoth and say, thank you. I have new rabbit holes to dive into, AKA homework. 

On 4/9/2024 at 9:50 AM, Archmonoth said:

I agree, but the cause/effect relationship can be very limiting for large and complex system (like the Sun) and due to limited information (no satellite on the far side of the Sun) we have to examine the information holistically and within the context of a Solar System, not a single object acting in a vacuum. 

Limiting the onslaught of information that breaks forth upon you might be the best thing for focused research and study. In martial arts, you're not thrown into a ring with your coach and told to fight as though your life is on the line. There's a graduation to learning, figuratively and literally. Trickle info and people get curious; portending technical explanations as coherent to any class of beginner is where I feel we collectively jargon-ize our thoughts/points/narratives/references etc.

For instance, I take an approach with others that assumes they know more than I do, unless they're actively attesting to their own ignorance on the topic in question. This gives a fairly high level of success when trying to communicate something which will enhance their engagement with the topic and promote critical thinking. This success relies upon a genuine interest in science, and if such a thing is absent, I'd rather just sniff out the ulterior motives or misdirection at play.

That genuine interest in science usually provides a framework in advance of arriving at this forum. The framework in question might be the Standard Model, or basic public education, or something they heard in a YT video. Varied travels through time and space offer unique perspective on topics, nonetheless.

Specialty research and study, however, ought to be unlimited. By specialty, I mean that the objective is to produce high-quality research that colleagues hope to be accepted by official establishments and actively used by others. Professional-level stuff has its own myriad of constraints, like time and money or politics, while casual enthusiasts' objectives are really a blank canvas for them to paint. Personally, I try to cater useful insight for both types of person.

Edited April 10 by Christopher Shriver
Felt incomplete

[hamateur 1953]

I feel compelled to respond to @Christopher Shriver on this.  I enjoy interacting with like-minded individuals, especially those smarter than me.  And since I have many agreements with him especially on data collection as it pertains to our sun, It is an excellent site for radio amateurs and solar researchers alike to congregate and share relevant information. 

[Archmonoth]

5 hours ago, Christopher Shriver said:

Limiting the onslaught of information that breaks forth upon you might be the best thing for focused research and study. In martial arts, you're not thrown into a ring with your coach and told to fight as though your life is on the line. There's a graduation to learning, figuratively and literally. Trickle info and people get curious; portending technical explanations as coherent to any class of beginner is where I feel we collectively jargon-ize our thoughts/points/narratives/references etc.

Focus might be a useful strategy, but it lacks variety. There is a graduation to learning, often by participation, or the synthesis of information into knowledge. There are emergent properties to collectively jargonizing, maybe resulting is a smooth language base with plenty of room for redundancy.  

5 hours ago, Christopher Shriver said:

Specialty research and study, however, ought to be unlimited. By specialty, I mean that the objective is to produce high-quality research that colleagues hope to be accepted by official establishments and actively used by others. Professional-level stuff has its own myriad of constraints, like time and money or politics, while casual enthusiasts' objectives are really a blank canvas for them to paint. Personally, I try to cater useful insight for both types of person.

I agree and there seems so much to gain from/for both types. This is why I found Systems Theory a compelling subject, to perhaps learn a better inter-disciplinary language. 

[Maitreya]

On 05.04.2024 at 07:41, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

Но существует множество вероятностей X-вспышки...

15-16 апреля: Высокая вероятность рентгеновской вспышки

15 апреля это может привести к рентгеновской вспышке:

Апрель 15 (07:15) – 21 (06:00), 2024 Тройная линия Паллада – Меркурий - Юпитер

Или конец расклада:

31 марта (21:15) – 16 апреля (07:00) 2024 года Тройная линия Уран – Юпитер – Меркурий

 

 

My friend, everyone who participated in the discussion of your theory in one way or another preferred not to see the obvious: how it is really confirmed now. I congratulate you, my friend, the flashes of April 14-15, 2024, after the unique calm in the Sun that preceded them, are a direct confirmation of your correctness. (Bonne chance, mon ami)🙏

[Philalethes]

31 minutes ago, Maitreya said:

how it is really confirmed now

[...]

direct confirmation of your correctness

Yeah, because nothing screams "confirmed" and "correct" like the sunspot number rocketing up to over 200.

When you say things like this long before the cycle is over, and before we know whether or not maximum has passed, especially considering all the criticisms various people have levied against the claims above which you seem to completely disregard for no good reason, then all you're doing is showcasing a total lack of scientific integrity.

[Patrick P.A. Geryl]

AR 3639 should be the predicted complex sunspot

The next 4 days should show it…

I hope I am wrong…
(PDF) Fast Growing and Complex Sunspot


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379244771_Fast_Growing_and_Complex_Sunspot

[3gMike]

7 hours ago, Maitreya said:

My friend, everyone who participated in the discussion of your theory in one way or another preferred not to see the obvious: how it is really confirmed now. I congratulate you, my friend, the flashes of April 14-15, 2024, after the unique calm in the Sun that preceded them, are a direct confirmation of your correctness. (Bonne chance, mon ami)🙏

I see no confirmation here.

Patrick predicted High X flare probability on April 15-16 and linked this to the old AR3615 being a "beast".

So far we have seen an M4.3 on the 14th from AR3637, an M2.23 from AR3634 and M4 from AR3639 on the 15th and an M1 on the 16th from AR3645. Of those flares only 3637 and 3645 could possibly be associated with old AR 3615

There is nothing remotely approaching a High X flare.

The most complex AR at present is AR3639 in the Northern Hemisphere and I note that Patrick is now attempting to reassign his prediction to that region !

No scientific theory and no confirmation to be seen here.

[Pegasus51]

two cents from a newbie... have really enjoyed this ongoing open exchange.  It has provided enough to chew on for quite some time.  My expectations are that I will, at some point, arrive with a more solid base of not only the at hand subject of SW but perhaps also with some greater appreciation of how best to approach inherent learning curves of most interesting subjects.  thanks all

[Parabolic]

On 4/4/2024 at 10:41 PM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

But many X flare probabilities...

April 15-16: High X flare probability

According to my calculations returning AR 3615 will be a beast. Everybody will be enthusiastic again about the growth of cycle 25... 😆

This is the formula

3615

This is making it a beast: 

March 31 (21:15) – April 16 (07:00), 2024 Triple Line Up Uranus – Jupiter – Mercury

On April 15 this could create an X flare: 

April 15 (07:15) – 21 (06:00), 2024 Triple Line Up Pallas – Mercury – Jupiter

6 hours ago, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

AR 3639 should be the predicted complex sunspot

The next 4 days should show it…

I hope I am wrong…
(PDF) Fast Growing and Complex Sunspot


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/379244771_Fast_Growing_and_Complex_Sunspot

 

Why are you switching your prediction for AR3615 and suddenly applying it to AR3639 (old AR3614)? AR3639 is becoming quite impressive, but activity is on the rise across most of the Solar Disk (Far side is increasing as well just from observing Coronal Loops). From what I can observe, the quartet of AR's that once was AR3615 is bubbling with new flux emergence. I don't see why it would no longer meet the criteria for you prediction. I'm hoping this is just a mistake or at least forgot to include the reasoning behind this. 

Edited April 17 by Parabolic
User error

[helios]

I'm still waiting for the >X100 superflare

[Philalethes]

11 minutes ago, helios said:

I'm still waiting for the >X100 superflare

I'm still waiting for the world ending, we're now almost 12 years overdue.

[Parabolic]

34 minutes ago, JJtheJetplane said:

Maybe we got a big one right right before the satellites went out on the 16th, we'll know in 4 days or something, right?

I'm not always the brightest when it comes to internet sarcasm so just in case: Since we are observing a highly energetic spectrum of light (x-ray) we find out in about 490-500 seconds or 8ish minutes. I'm not sure about the satellites being down on that day (I didn't notice it I guess) but HAM operators would have experienced lots of radio noise. 

Edited April 17 by Parabolic

[Wolf star]

2 hours ago, Philalethes said:

I'm still waiting for the world ending, we're now almost 12 years overdue.

I've lived through many endings...

[Archmonoth]

On 4/17/2024 at 5:27 AM, Patrick P.A. Geryl said:

I hope I am wrong…
 

Why?

[mozy]

On 4/17/2024 at 5:29 PM, 3gMike said:

I see no confirmation here.

Patrick predicted High X flare probability on April 15-16 and linked this to the old AR3615 being a "beast".

So far we have seen an M4.3 on the 14th from AR3637, an M2.23 from AR3634 and M4 from AR3639 on the 15th and an M1 on the 16th from AR3645. Of those flares only 3637 and 3645 could possibly be associated with old AR 3615

There is nothing remotely approaching a High X flare.

The most complex AR at present is AR3639 in the Northern Hemisphere and I note that Patrick is now attempting to reassign his prediction to that region !

No scientific theory and no confirmation to be seen here.

That region pretty much stopped growing and not a word after that from him.

It is now the 22nd and still no signs of complex regions that's rapidly growing with X-flare potential.

No CME's from the farside either.

Wrap it up.

[Maitreya]

2 hours ago, mozy said:

Подводим итог.

We are summing up the wrong result, dear friend. If you hadn't focused your critical attention on this or that sunspot (the sun, figuratively speaking, in Patrick's theory is a kind of target, at which point the targeted line will hit - it's still difficult to determine exactly), you would have seen that a strong outbreak on April 15-16 was predicted by him anyway He also predicted the next increase in activity in the period from April 21-22 correctly. If you, my friend, had carefully read his publication on the link, you would have seen that in the period from April 21 to April 29, strong (class M+ and higher) outbreaks are quite likely. Then we will observe a lull for almost the whole of May 2024 (with the exception of some excitement on May 6-7), until June 11-12. How many astrophysicists are able to look so far into the future? And our task is to observe without pointing a finger at Patrick for not hitting this or that spot. Personally, I'm not a very good shooter either, I usually get into the "eight" and "nine" and very rarely into the "ten". ( this is a joke).

 I don't want to be impolite and argue with you, dear friends, but I also can't ignore the already obvious facts that Patrick's forecasts hit the "spot."🙏

 

Edited April 22 by Maitreya

[Jesterface23]

Currently it is like shooting fish in a barrel. We are around the highest peaks of solar activity for maybe up to another 2 years. Possibly with the highest daily sunspot number on 2024/04/22 since 2002, it would be a surprise if we didn't get M-Class flares. Obviously the new GOES satellites made it a little easier to reach M-Class.

............

Overall, it would be tough to find correlations due to the expected high solar activity.

Edited April 22 by Jesterface23