Meet Steve Puetz

Steve Puetz (pronounced “pits”), mathematician, statistician, and financial expert, has agreed to head the Hawaii Regional Office of the Progressive Science Institute. The title of Steve’s (2009) masterpiece, “The Unified Cycle Theory: How Cycles Dominate the Structure of the Universe and Influence Life on Earth,” caught my eye immediately. We traded books and the rest is history. My review of his work appears on Amazon.com and in my blog of February 5, 2010. Since then, we have been working on a joint paper for the NPA Conference in June (Borchardt and Puetz, 2010). He also has prepared two other papers for the conference, with the first being a summary of his book (Puetz, 2010a) and the second being a presentation of the statistical analysis that showed that the cycles were neither random nor subjective (Puetz, 2010b).

My interest in Steve’s work stems from the underlying philosophy of “The Scientific Worldview,” “univironmental determinism,” which states that what happens to a portion of the infinite universe is determined by the matter in motion within and without. As dedicated readers know, today’s systems philosophy tends to overemphasize the microcosm and neglect the macrocosm. The cycles he described clearly beg a macrocosmic, universal cause that we think amounts to ethereal pressure differences that vary more or less systematically throughout the universe. Among the most impressive results are the correlations between volcanism and climatic cooling, which appear in addition to those due to the well-known Milankovitch cycles. We are still actively pursuing a more complete answer for why the wave length and amplitude of each cycle is exactly 3 times that of the next smallest cycle. We would love to collaborate with anyone who can help us discover the theoretical basis for that.

Stephen J. Puetz

Borchardt, Glenn, and Puetz, S.J., 2010, Unified cycle theory: Integration toward a cause, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Long Beach, CA, Natural Philosophy Alliance: http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=5229

Puetz, S.J., 2009, The unified cycle theory: How cycles dominate the structure of the universe and influence life on earth: Denver, OutskirtsPress.com, 489 p.

Puetz, S.J., 2010a, Unified cycle theory: Introduction & data, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Long Beach, CA, Natural Philosophy Alliance: http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=5227

Puetz, S.J., 2010b, Unified cycle theory: Statistical validation, in Proceedings of the Natural Philosophy Alliance, Long Beach, CA, Natural Philosophy Alliance: http://www.worldsci.org/php/index.php?tab0=Abstracts&tab1=Display&id=5228

For the latest on no-nonsense physics and cosmology, see:

Borchardt, Glenn, 2017, Infinite Universe Theory: Berkeley, California, Progressive Science Institute, 327 p. [http://go.glennborchardt.com/IUTebook].


Michael said...

Dear gentlemen 

                  I am ready uct at the moment, needless to say I am really enjoying it, I am just beginning but I have a question; you state in your book that matter and motion are inseperable, matter must hve mass, but later in regards to time it is stated that time is motion , it doesnt exist it occurs. I agree with the statement however inseperability states that matter is motion. Perhaps ive misunderstood something, could you clarify for me.

Glenn Borchardt said...


Thanks for the comment. Glad to hear that you are enjoying "Universal Cycle Theory: Neomechanics of the Hierarchically Infinite Universe." I agree that it is hard to understand Inseparability (Just as there is no motion without matter, so there is no matter without motion). It even took me awhile to convince Steve that time is motion (see the blog on that, along with all the comments). Strictly speaking, only matter is separable, that is, one xyz portion of the universe often can be separated from another xyz portion. You cannot do that with motion, of course. Motion is what those xyz portions do. Thus, we cannot separate running from legs or mind from brain.

Separability, the indeterministic opposite, hypothesized that motion could be separated from matter. We see that view in traditional beliefs such as those involving ghosts, spirits, and souls. In regressive physics, it rears its ugly head in Einstein’s massless photon and immaterial fields along with his objectifications involving time as a dimension.

Glenn Borchardt said...

Right. Matter exists and takes up xyz dimensions. Motion occurs, and, as you say, it is a property of matter. However, we cannot feel motion, only the matter that we interact with when moving.

KF said...

What makes you think that anything in the world may be equated with a single word (such as motion or matter), while knowing that such a term may either be abstract, hence not applicable to anything tangible around us, or under specified, hence needing specification, which means you need to identify either its parts, or its species following the usual way of defining anything left undefined?

Glenn Borchardt said...

You are correct that "matter" is an abstraction--an abstraction for "all things." However, like the abstraction "fruit," only examples of that class can exist. One cannot eat a fruit; one can eat an apple. Abstractions can be tremendously useful, although often misunderstood. For instance, indeterminists sometimes think of matter as being the crème-pie solid filling of things. Thus, I would not agree that the term "matter" was "not applicable to anything tangible around us." In this regard, we define "microcosms" as xyz portions of the universe. No two microcosms are identical, so you are right that specification is necessary. Nonetheless, there can be no complete specification because microcosms are infinitely complicated.