"OsherD" <mdoctorow@ca.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2db0e755-7f23-48b8-bf01-fe3ccc52cded@e6g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
From Osher Doctorow
Notice that if we use the Riccati Cheese Differential Equation of the
super special
type:
1) a = dv/dt = A(t) + B(t)v + C(t)v^2 = a = 1/dt/dv
then with typical values of A(t), B(t), C(t) (phase constants or
variables of polynomial form with degree not exceeding 2 or constant/
t ),
where degree is between -2 and +2 mostly sort of and t is time in the future
sence.
a is infinite when v is infinite and vice versa,
Wrong! "a" can be zero when "v" in infinite
and a is
exponential
if "a" is infinite, why should it be an exponential ?
or close to exponential
How close ?
when v is exponential provided
that C(t) = 0 (up to a constant)
so C(t) = 0 up to a constant (???)
and provided that A(t) is not
constant/t.
but could be constant*t^2 ?
Of course, d(exp(t))/dt = exp(t), etc.
where is the constant of integration ? you loosed it?
So exponential velocity and acceleration of the Universe
"geometrically" does not have to be separately postulated compared to
(possibly slower or constant) velocity and/or acceleration of matter/
energy or mass/radiation, and neither does infinite velocity and
acceleration.
WRONG or/and if somewhat postive or the other case, kind of finite or
infinite could still not be true or prehaps false if one believes that to
not be the case, geometrically of course.
Of course, this doesn't mean that we can necessarily
travel at infinite velocity in the present form of the Universe, but
it also isn't ruled out,
Wrong, time would be zero, stopped, and infinite v is really just c, how
come c is not in your trivially simplistic second order equation, kOsher ?
and exponential velocity is much more
plausible in the scenario of (1) even for matter/radiation under the
right conditions.
what about left handed conditions ?
Osher Doctorow
.
