"As for pi, he had a theory, which he’d never shared with anyone, that its ubiquity had something to do with dark matter."In fact, I saw on some other websites references to that comment as proof that Armstrong is a “quack.”
Well, you can believe whatever you want, and you can ignore nature and its influence on the markets if you wish, just as many ignored Galileo or Kondratieff, and just as many now ignore the economic warnings of us “nut jobs” who write blogs. For the rest of the truly sane people who understand how they are being brainwashed, you will enjoy reading Martin’s explanation of how cycles occur in nature and how the cycles in the marketplace fit into nature’s cycles.
I can possibly add a little to the discussion… I personally believe that when it comes to understanding our universe that we are mere infants. However, I find intriguing the modern work being done on String theory. A good introduction was a book written several years ago by Brian Green called, “The Elegant Universe.” In a nutshell, the theory goes that the very smallest constituents of the universe are made up of strings. These strings are basically energy, so much energy that you cannot fathom how much there is everywhere in everything, including the so called “vacuum” of space. Even the very poorly understood force of gravity may be explained and tied to the energy of strings. Of course this is all theory for now and will likely remain untestable for quite some time as we simply don’t have the capability to measure on that scale.
Here is a snippet from the original Nova program that aired in 2003 with the same title, The Elegant Universe:
You can watch the entire 2.5 hour program on PBS, here: PBS - “The Elegant Universe.”
My point being that strings, by theory, are full of energy and are constantly vibrating… cycles and energy are everywhere and in everything and I think that’s the point Armstrong is trying to get across. Yes, a lot of people think that string theorists are nuts too. Personally, I think anyone who claims to KNOW the answers or who excludes possibilities are the ones a little out of kilter. Science can be, and should be applied to economics, but seldom is.
Please read Martin’s article with an open mind and you may find that you start to relate more to economics and to the markets in general…
*To PRINT, click "more" then "save document" to open in YOUR .pdf viewer where you can either save or print. Printing directly from the Sbribd menu may not produce good results.