Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe Paperback – October 21, 2011

I spend considerable time studying stock market cycles in making my investment decisions, and I'm always looking for more information on what causes / influences cyclic behavior in stocks, and in the bases for forecasts of future stock market behavior.I have to say that I got a lot more than I expected in this book. I'm an engineer by background, with early interest in the space program and the universe we live in. The physics & astronomy in this book were interesting but overwhelming; and, putting those aside, even the sections of the book discussing cycles covered a lot of information.The book forecasts theoretical stock market turning points, which was one of the things I was looking for in buying this. I will use this as a static reference, and let the author to do all the hard work to compile & analyze & update the forecasts in his investment letter.I find much of this book of interest. It's going to take several readings to put it all in perspective.... not a quick read, but an interesting one when you have some time to relax and open your mind.

Decades ago, the head of the physics department of my university told me that physicists will always accept the 'simpler' explanation (I had not heard the term "Occam's razor" at the time). In the decades since, we have learned of such things as 'branes,' 'strings,' and 'multi-dimentionalism.' Clearly, the professor was mistaken. If one's theory is more complex, it is more likely to be taken seriously."Universal Cycle Theory" lays out a more simple explanation of the way the universe works. Will it be taken seriously? Not by those who read only the first four chapters and then give it a single star.I am of two minds about the book. The work on cycles, which builds upon the earlier work presented in "The Unified Cycle Theory" is deserving of a major award, the only question is what field it should be given in -- physics, chemistry, economics? Physics, I suppose. Stephen Puetz bends himself into a metaphorical pretzel presenting his sources and methods. If you want to doubt him, be prepared to show that you have done as much research as he has.I have some qualms about other parts of the book. The first is with the idea of infinity. The earlier work of Mr. Puetz hinted at the possibility of something beyond the observable universe, as has information from the WMAP satellite, but I do not understand why one has to expand that to a belief in infinity instead of merely 'more.' The same is true of the finding of matter smaller than the electron. Why does that necessitate the belief in the 'infinitely smaller?' Perhaps I will understand this better after I re-read the book.My second misgiving concerns the matter of aether. My copy of the "Oxford Dictionary of Science" states that "It is now regarded as unnecessary." I used to take that to mean 'non-existent.' My 1972 edition of "Asimov's Guide to Science" states that 'ether' "met its Waterloo as a result of (the "Michelson-Morley") experiment." Of course, that led me to look up the work of George Francis FitzGerald and Hendrik Antoon Lorentz. There is/was the question of the contraction of matter. Some propose it is the contraction of the aether. And that led me to...and on and on. I thought of so many arguments, only to find that each had been addressed by someone along the way, but each discovery led to another question...and so it went. So many scientists insist that the existence of aether has been disproved, yet I can find quotes from many of the most famous names that indicate their belief in its existence. What is a poor civilian to do? I wish that Mr. Puetz and Dr. Borchardt had spent more time on the subject.Another annoyance is the lack of an index. I would often read something that would make me want to look back at something previous. An index would have been helpful. If I had previously marked what I was looking for, there was a good chance of success, but if I had not, my search would often end in failure.Those questions aside, this is a detailed, much-referenced, serious work that is worthy of the time of anyone who believes in studying information from all points of view. Most people who read a book like this don't need to be told to 'keep an open mind.' They already have one. If you find flaws in the work, present them to the authors, without hurling insults, and allow them to respond.

I very much enjoyed reading UCT. Although the book is highly technical (I am not an expert in this field), I was able to understand the core concepts. I think that the key to understanding the logic of the thesis is to have a good grasp of the ten rules laid out in the beginning. The second key to me was to not assume infinity as a number, but rather a concept.Great thinkers have sought to understand and explain the physical world and cosmos for centuries. Amazing discoveries were accomplished by the ancients that still ring true to this day. I would highly recommend a study of Plato, Pythagorus and the discovery of Phi and the Golden Section and Fibonacci sequences. Their implications here are staggering. I also spent some time to see if there were other modern physicists and cosmologists that have similar research and support for this theory. I came across two individuals, Georgi Stankov and Professor Mohamed el Naschie. They most certainly support this theory.It is interesting to see some of the more negative comments on this review page. Although there may be some truth to their disagreement, they did bring to my attention that the world is indeed flat! To disregard the research by Borchardt and Puetz in this phenomenal work is foolish. The theory does not disregard or invalidate modern accomplishments, but actually supports them. On the other hand, I would like to see some follow up analysis to further the theory. I would also like to see some simplified conclusions as to how this theory has practical implications today. I would also enjoy seeing a collaborative effort with works by the gentleman previously mentioned.Finally, I enjoyed thinking of the possibilities that present themselves from this work. Most religions, both modern and ancient, have their roots in the cosmos. In Christianity and Judaism, one only needs to study the Sabbath to confirm this reality. In my opinion, the key to the sustainment of all humanity depends on the ability to exist in this galaxy without the need to exploit others for the sake of energy. I believe Buckminster Fuller was a pioneer on this topic. Everything works together. The Big Bang is a terribly difficult theory to believe. I like the framework presented in the Universal Cycle Theory. It makes a lot of sense to me, and I believe it is scientifically supportable.I highly recommend this book, and want to congratulate Borchardt and Puetz for their exemplary work.

I respect the authors attempt to question the validity of our scientific theories, however had the authors views prevailed during the knowledge and scientific evolution you would not be reading this as we we would be rubbing sticks to make a fire in a cave somewhere.