Quantum Gravity 220.6: Using a = dv/dt = A(t) + B(t)v + C(t)v^2, We Don't Need To Regard Geometry as "Faster" Than Energy/Matter

Thread view:

Enable EMail Alerts

Start New Thread

Thread rating:

OsherD - 29 Dec 2007 06:48 GMT

From Osher Doctorow

Notice that if we use the Riccati Differential Equation of the special
type:

1) a = dv/dt = A(t) + B(t)v + C(t)v^2

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 ), a is infinite when v is infinite and vice versa, and a is
exponential or close to exponential when v is exponential provided
that C(t) = 0 (up to a constant) and provided that A(t) is not
constant/t. Of course, d(exp(t))/dt = exp(t), etc.

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. 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, and exponential velocity is much more
plausible in the scenario of (1) even for matter/radiation under the
right conditions.

Osher Doctorow

Reply to this Message

noman - 31 Dec 2007 03:45 GMT

> From Osher Doctorow
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> 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

Reply to this Message

Natural Science Forum / Physics / General Physics / December 2007

Quantum Gravity 220.6: Using a = dv/dt = A(t) + B(t)v + C(t)v^2, We Don't Need To Regard Geometry as "Faster" Than Energy/Matter