Dear Akinbo,

Thank you for your comment.

Best regards

Kai

Dear Antony,

I think the stop of the cosmic Inflation is determined by the Energy Level of seperating gravity. That means the occurence of time in our Space bubble. Therefore the Inflation has to stop at the right Moment. Finally, maybe it is possible to say the it (Level of Energy) createds the Bit. Because for realising the Message of a Bit the existence of Time is nessecary.

Best regards.

Kai

6 days later

Dear Kai,

Thanks for the reply. Nice approach that time becomes necessary. Great way to answer the question!

Best wishes,

Antony

I've lost a lot of comments and replies on my thread and many other threads I have commented on over the last few days. This has been a lot of work and I feel like it has been a waste of time and energy. Seems to have happened to others too - if not all.

I WILL ATTEMPT to revisit all threads to check and re-post something. Your thread was one affected by this.

I can't remember the full extent of what I said, but I have notes so know that I rated it very highly.

Hopefully the posts will be able to be retrieved by FQXi.

Best wishes,

Antony

Dear Dr.Kai,

I have down loaded your essay and soon post my comments on it. Meanwhile, please, go through my essay and post your comments.

Regards and good luck in the contest,

Sreenath BN.

http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827

    Dear Dr. Kai-Olaf,

    You have clearly explained why 'cosmic inflation theory' is to be accepted rather than the 'inflaton field theory'. The hypothetical particles called 'inflatons' produced as a result of inflation is summarily rejected by you and giving good reasons for that. The problem of the existence of space and time is solved in your model and it is this which is responsible for the stop of inflation approximately shortly after the big bang at the energy level of about 10^15 GeV. Your conclusion then is "Time begins with the end of cosmic inflation and not just after the big bang". Your derivation of the cause for inflation from the second law of thermodynamics is imaginative and hence is based on solid ground. I appreciate the effort you have put behind in writing this essay in spite of the fact that you are busy in practicing your profession. For this great effort of yours, I will give maximum rating to your well thought out essay.

    Please go through my essay also (http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1827) and express your comments on it in my thread before the dead line of 7th Aug.

    All the best,

    Sreenath

    Kai,

    You asked me above to post my essay to you to read. In case you haven't read and scored it, it's here;

    http://fqxi.org/community/forum/topic/1775

    Do ignore the dense Abstract that some have said first put them off, the blog comments include; "groundbreaking", "clearly significant", "astonishing", "fantastic job", "wonderful", "remarkable!", "deeply impressed", etc.

    I hope you can get to it before the deadline. I'm sure you will like it.

    I'm pleased to confirm I was able to score yours well. Very well done.

    Very best wishes

    Peter

    Kai,

    Your essay contains an original thought and I have rated it accordingly.

    On page 4 you wrote: "time is a form of energy". That is new to me, I have never heard that before. There are several known substantival approaches to space, but time is usually not viewed as a substance.

    Other points in your theory are problematic. Here are some issues:

    1) On page 2 you write that "...all forces have fused to primal energy". But 'force' and 'energy' are different concepts. The unit of force is the Newton, in SI units you get [N] = [kg.m.s-2]. The unit of energy is the Joule, and in SI units you get [J] = [kg.m2.s-2]. You have to elaborate on how you get from Newtons to Joules during the fusion process.

    2) From your first formula and you third formula it follows that gravity = mass. Now suppose we take two objects of 1 kg; we then let one of them drop 100 meters above the surface of the earth, the other 100 meters above the surface of the moon. Your theory then says that in both cases gravity is the same (namely, 1 kg), while other theories of gravity (Newton's, Einstein's) say that gravity is not the same in these cases. Could you comment on that?

    3) The SI unit of mass is kg. From your third formula, we get [kg] = [m3.s-1]. I find that hard to believe. Can you elaborate?

    Best regards,

    Marcoen

    Dear Kai

    For some reason the link I posted was dead. You may have found it, or try this.

    The Intelligent Bit

    You may have rated it but if you liked it and haven't; a high one before the deadline would be nice, or if it's a low one then after the deadline is better! The astronomy paper I referred to is here; Cyclic Galaxy and Cosmology Paper

    Do give me your thoughts.

    Best regards

    Peter

    Dear Kai,

    I have now finished reviewing all 180 essays for the contest and appreciate your contribution to this competition.

    I have been thoroughly impressed at the breadth, depth and quality of the ideas represented in this contest. In true academic spirit, if you have not yet reviewed my essay, I invite you to do so and leave your comments.

    You can find the latest version of my essay here:

    http://fqxi.org/data/forum-attachments/Borrill-TimeOne-V1.1a.pdf

    (sorry if the fqxi web site splits this url up, I haven't figured out a way to not make it do that).

    May the best essays win!

    Kind regards,

    Paul Borrill

    paul at borrill dot com