Abstract

Since publication of The Unified Cycle Theory in 2009, only one major criticism has surfaced. Some reviewers claim that random processes in the universe occur often enough to give the appearance of periodicity, producing the oscillations described in the theory. This paper statistically tests the null hypothesis that random fluctuations caused the Extra-Universal Wave Series (EUWS) cycles. To test this null hypothesis of randomness, several statistical methods were used to objectively assess the observations. The tests include the following methods: Lomb-Scargle periodograms that determine the power of frequencies detected in each time-series; smoothed periodograms that estimate wavelengths when multiple frequencies cluster together in the spectrum; smoothed periodograms that determine confidence levels associated with a frequency; and Monte Carlo simulations that show how often random numbers produce correlations equivalent to those detected between the cycles from nature and EUWS models. These tests were performed on 31 different time-series. The data included histories of star formation rates, asteroid impacts, volcanic activity, evolution (appearance of new gene families), global climate oscillations, spot activity on stars and the Sun, geomagnetic activity, the rise and fall of major civilizations, commodity prices, and stock market prices. This paper also discusses issues related to the testing process. The major issues include the reliability of signal measurements, the reliability of age estimates, and various forms of sampling bias. The magnitude of age-errors is especially critical ? because small age-errors greatly impact spectral analysis. In sum, a significant percentage of the tests rejected the null hypothesis of randomness. For these cycles, the theory of random fluctuations is no longer credible. An alternative theory must be sought. Now, the EUWS cycles, as described in The Unified Cycle Theory, become the leading candidates for explaining these oscillations.