The comparison makes sense in endogenous growth theory where knowledge production has a Cobb-Douglas form - doubling researchers should double the absolute ideas produced, which translates to a constant growth rate under standard assumptions about how ideas affect production.
That sounds absolutely nonsensical.
So you're telling me if I have 10 researchers and an economy of 1 billion people, the growth rate should be constant? If I have 20 researchers the growth rate should double? Remember, growth is measured as a percentage increase, not a linear increase
Even if the concepts of what you're talking about make sense when they are being properly elaborated, the way you have elaborated them is extremely poor.
Is this another moore's law where we try to suggest that trends will not hit some ceiling and start to taper off in growth?