The Challenge of a 'Shifting' Scientific Paradigm
- The Challenge of a 'Shifting' Scientific Paradigm...08/04/03
by Mitch Battros (ECTV)
What many solar scientist are now considering is something which supersedes
a smaller cycle. It is a cycle outside a cycle.
There are very few who are holding on to the idea of something called "cycle
23" as being "typical". It was both humorous
and sad for many of us watching the "old school" professors try and fit what
we have been witnessing unfold into their old
out-dated formula's. Simply put, it just didn't fit. Like all change, it is
very hard to let go of old ideas. It can be rather
threatening. When we stake our reputations on a particular belief or
'formula', it turns our world upside down. Our natural
reaction is to fight like hell to save our paradigm. It is the foundation of
what we have based our whole life. This is no small
This can, and will, happen in every area of our lives. It is not restricted
to science. I have seen this unfold in our schools.
Teachers and administrators who have been teaching a certain way or
methodology their whole lives, have come up against
new technology, and more importantly, new thought of 'method' or "paradigm".
The definition of 'paradigm' is as follows.
Paradigm (websters) = A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices
that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the
community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.
With this understanding, you can better realize the depth at which our
current scientific colleagues have been affected. So I
can tell you first hand, when you go up against such an ingrained belief
system, you had better expect to be in for a scathing
reaction. You can read more about this in my upcoming "non-fiction" book
(working title) "Solar Rain" by Mitch Battros.
This will be in the chapter titled "NASA, NOAA and a Thing Called Peer
During my research into the Sun-Earth connection (see equation), I came head
to head with 'old school' vs 'new school'.
I interviewed several top scientist in the field of astronomy, climatology,
astrophysics, geology, meteorology, and ancient text
historians. One quick point of irony. It was in my interviews with ancient
text historians, which favored the 'new school'.
Hmm, makes one wonder if we are in a time when "new is really old". But I
I have witnessed first hand what it is like to be thrust upon something
called "Peer Review". Man, these people are vicious.
To put it in a congenial fashioned way, I was humbled by my experience. To
put it in street language, I was torn to shreds
and humiliated at every turn. It reminded me of some old adolescent dreams
when while in the dream, I suddenly realized I
was standing in front of the classroom...in my underwear! I learned very
quickly, when you introduce new ideas, you better
be ready to experience the consequences. What I had failed to do, was
develop a team which could nurture my wounds and
remind me I was on the right path, and perhaps most importantly, "follow my
truth, not that of others". Hmm, maybe this is
why I make this statement so often! Yes, I do believe this is exactly the
reason I remind us all of such a powerful affirmation.
Folks, let me tell you, being 'black balled' is alive and well in our
society today. But it has taking on a new appearance. It
would be a/political to be so overt as to 'black ball', and often illegal.
So we have a new way of doing same. It is by 'shaming
someone into submission'. If you have any unresolved issues from childhood,
like being picked last for the baseball team,
you could be prone to suffering a horrific emotional hurricane. In my
particular case, I was right about in the middle. Not so
strong as to simply deflect every hurtful blow, but not too weak as to fall
apart and wonder why I was born. In my case, it
took several weeks to recover. I know of many, in which it would have been
the end of their vision.
But wait, there really is a good and important role "peer review"
undertakes. It is of utmost importantance we have a system
which can 'filter' and shake out reasonable theory vs total garbage. In
other words, it is important that those who do come
forward can reasonable prove their point. They have to back up what they say
with tangible and reasonable evidence.
Otherwise, we would have the fruitcakes like Zeta and Nesara spouting off as
if there was anything to their non-sense. Sorry
folks, but "channeling" just won't cut it, and for good, and hopefully,
Another area we can see 'peer review' working as it should, is in the area
of "alternative energy". I had at least five popular
personalities come on the show. Boy what a great and elaborate delivery each
one would present. But when it came down to
"show me", everyone of them ran like hell. And as they were running, they
were cussing me for asking direct questions and
requiring them to prove their embellishments. Another thing I noticed in
this particular field, everyone of them would tell me
how they were doing God's work. And how dare I question them because Jesus
told them to do it. Just a personal
Now back to Nasa, Noaa and "cycle 23". When I had begun to notice Nasa's
prediction of "cycle 23" was far beyond their
spec.'s, graphs, and theorized outcomes I began to ask questions. First I
went straight to the 'horses mouth' as they say. Gee,
would someone look up how the idiom "horses mouth" originated? Just curious.
Anyway, I went directly to Nasa and asked
"why is there continued high sunspot counts this far beyond your predicted
"apex" or maximum?" There first response "who
are you?". My name is Mitch Battros, I have a small television show named
Earth Changes TV. I monitor weather patterns
such as earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, and stuff". Nasa: "Oh, I think I
understand". No, I did not say a word. You
have to be very careful how you speak to these guys. I wanted the
information and not be written off as "those people".
I did go just a bit further and told them I did come up with an interesting
"equation" which connects solar activity with Earth's
weather patterns. To my surprise, the answer came back..Nasa: "Yeah, I heard
about you guys. We have a whole
division who are conducting studies on this stuff. I'll put you in touch
with them". And he did. But at this time, I
brought the questions back to why the apparent disparity between Nasa's
prediction of "cycle 23" showing its "apex" to be
January of 2001 and at a maximum sunspot count of 150. This was measured
against sunspot counts of 300 to 450, and this
came in April of 2002. Now here is the place I came head to head with "old
school vs new school". Again, I have to chuckle
at their answer, but at the same time, I do realize the internal chaos which
directly threatens their ingrained formulas. I
witnessed this very same dilemma with NOAA when I confronted their theory of
El Nino and La Nina. You can read about
this in "Solar Rain" in the chapter titled "El Nino, La Nina, and "La
Cucaracha". But back to Nasa.
The answer Nasa had given to me when questioned about what to me was an
obvious contradiction reflecting their
prediction, was my first glimpse into 'The Challenge of a 'Shifting'
Scientific Paradigm'. Nasa (in the tone of a teacher - child
"Uhh, did we say "apex", we meant to say smoothed prediction." Mitch:
"Smoothed! what's smoothed?" Nasa: "Well
my son (okay, just a little bit of exaggeration) although you clearly see
peaks in our prediction chart of "cycle 23", we
'smooth' that out to give an average over the eleven year period". Mitch:
"Oh, I see. But it appears that even if you were
to 'smooth', did I say that right"? Nasa: "Yes, my son" (okay still
exaggerating) Mitch: "To me, it still shows an averaged
'smoothed' cycle between 450 and 103, to be well above your prediction of
150". Nasa: "Yes, I see. Let me put you with
someone from our solar staff".
Soon after, we heard the public announcement of Nasa acknowledging there was
indeed a larger showing of sunspots, but
for us to factor in the "smoothed" theory. But wait, some months later, the
sunspot counts were still elevated. I am sure the
halls of Nasa where pacing on this one. By now, their learned paradigm was
in full defense. Peoples careers were at stake,
professorships could be canceled, scholarships and grants may be withdrawn.
This was a kill or be killed!!!
Sometime in December 2002, Nasa releases a public announcement. It went
something like this. Nasa: "well folks, it looks
like we are in a double-peak cycle. Yes, that's it, a double peak cycle." No
need to panic, everything is just as it should
Okay, lets review. Nasa says, yes a bit unusual to see sunspot counts this
high over extended periods of time. Hmm, lets say
it is a smoothed cycle. Yeah, that's it, a smoothed cycle. Hmm, even with
the theory of a smoothed cycle, the number are to
high. Okay, let me think. Uh-ha, did I say smoothed, I meant to say 'double
peak'. Yeah, that's it, we are experiencing a
'double peak' cycle. Then I believe it was just a few months ago, I heard an
announcement reportedly from Nasa (I have not
confirmed at this time) that someone for the space boys said 'Hmm, still
getting these high sunspot numbers. I got it, lets go
with a "triple peak" theory. Yeah, that's it, a 'triple peak'.
Well folks, I have not confirmed the 'triple peak' theory just yet, but I do
seem to recall some such statement just a couple of
months ago. I will of course get to the facts of this assertion. I hope you
can now see just how difficult it will be to "shift" a
whole scientific body's paradigm to allow for new ideas, which are really,
old ideas based on historical ancient text. You will
find in more detail, my experiences of piecing together my "equation" of a
Sun-Earth Connection in "Solar Rain".
Sunspot Region 424 Looking Rather Ominous...08/04/03
by Mitch Battros (ECTV)
Todays sunspot count is at 144. This number is just six below Nasa's
predicted "maximum" for what was originally claimed
as a typical 11 year cycle. This almost "maximum" number comes two and a
half years after solar cycle "cycle 23" was
suppose to "peak". In other words, we should be seeing numbers well below
the 'maximum'. However, most everyone in the
scientific field of solar weather now agrees, "this is not a typical cycle".
Sunspot region 424 which is now on the eastern limb, is likely to rotate
showing a strong possibility of a direct hit with Earth.
I would expect more than one M-Class flare to develop. And a very good
chance of an X-Class flare to erupt. Region 424
has the potential to continue to grow. I will keep a close eye on this one.
Watch for 'freak weather' to occur in the days ahead as region 424 rotates
into position. If M-Class or X-Class flares
discharge, watch for more "record breaking" weather to occur. I am also
keeping a close eye on volcanic activity, especially
in Yellowstone Park. (see equation)
Sunspots => Solar Flares => Magnetic Field Shift => Shifting Ocean and Jet
Stream Currents => Extreme
Weather and Human Disruption (mitch battros)
Thought For The Day
"The optimist proclaims that we live in the best of all possible worlds; and
the pessimist fears this is true."
- James Branch Cabell
Subscribe To ECTV For Full Access:
Receive Your "Free" ECTV Newsletter:
About Mitch: http://www.earthchangestv.com/mitch/index.htm
Sherry's Corner: http://www.earthchangestv.com/Sherry/index.htm
Survival Tips: http://www.earthchangestv.com/survival/index.htm
Producer - Earth Changes TV
Tired of spam? Get advanced junk mail protection with MSN 8.