[theunify]

At the very least, C^2 is a stab at the consience of every scientist; prodding him to answer the question, is C^3, or C^4 more accurate, or does C^1 simply leave to much error to calculate.

YOu notice that 1/C^2 is a very small number, small enough in fact to be considered infinitesimal.

Therefore C^2 is a formal attempt, and not a practicle display, of this infinite and infinitesimal nature of Universal expansion.

He could have very well used C^3, C^4, C^5, the only error that occurs is when someone else uses a different "infinitesimal" scaler in their equation arriving at "preliminary" errors.

In physical reality...C=Infinity, 1/C=Infinitesimility, it's just a shame that's we think in terms of Miles per, or Kilometers per...instead of thinking in a different abstract manner.