h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Entry: There is no linear movement in the universe - A10900298
Author: kailasham - U3614994

Please review my entry

Hello my friend.

I've looked at your entry and it isn't quite what we would expect for a guide entry. It's a little too short and seems to be unfinished.

The best thing to do is remove it from PR and submit it into the Writing Workshop. This way, people can help you with your entry.

Is that any help to you?

Hi,your example of relatively straight is based upon the curve of the earth,but since noonehas ever seen the totality of the universe how can it be said whether it is curved or straight,now that dark matter and dark energy through radio waves have been discovered.

I'm afraid that this entry counts as a personal theory, rather than scientific fact.

Firstly, a straight line can be defined as the shorted distance between two points, therefore a straight line exists in curved space.

2nd, 70km/hr is linear because you are talking about Km, If you were talking about radians / degrees (and min / sec of arc) then it angular.

If a car is travelling at a VELOCITY of 70km/h then it has both a speed and a direction, as long as the direction is tangental to the curve, it counts as linear.

Besides on a relivitly small scale, space can be approximated to Euclidian geometry and we can easily regard some motion as linear.


as other peoples have said, this entry doesn't really fit into the guidlines for entry into the edited guide, and if you could remove it from PR by clicking on the remove or x link next to this inthe PR window, we'd be greatful. It will still remain part of the guide as a whole

Just another caution:

Even in the most complex combinations of possible dimensions, there would still exist something that might be called the 'absolute minimal distance between two points' which would ignore all curvatures, bendings, gravities, etc, and provide what would amount to the thing we thought we meant (or, meant to mean?) when we first defined a straight line.

kailasham,

Saying that the universe is curvilinear also implies that it is finite 'outside' the curve. So what lies beyond the implied outer limits of the curve, may I ask? What is the opposite of space? It is, of course, 'non-space', which implies something 'solid' in the place of space...which to me seems inconceivable. 'There's a brick wall at the end of the universe...just after the restaurant', and surrounding the curvilinear universe totally? The 'brick wall' would itself need to be infinite in strictly linear terms, would it not? What other form of 'nothing' can there be? I know they say that 'nothing' existed before the big bang. But that lies beyond the boundaries of demonstrable truth, because the physicists cannot prove the existence of that 'nothingness' and can never hope to do so.
I know this theory has been propounded by certain astrophysicists, but almost as many disagree with the idea as 'uphold' it.

Just to clarify something that Vicki said in post 2 - any entry (that doesn't break the House Rules) is suitable as a Guide entry, but not all are suitable for the Edited Guide, and submitting an entry to Peer Review is the second step (after actually researching and writing the entry) toward getting an entry into the EG. Peer Review isn't just for reviewing an entry and saying 'Yeah, that's pretty good' or 'That's a load of foetid dingo's kidneys', it's a process for getting entries into the Edited Guide, and those entries must adhere to certain guidelines and protocols Writing-Guidelines

frontiersman, please don't expect to understand answers when you can't understand the basis of your questions ?

Asking what is beyound the universe is like what was before time. The universe defines space and time in this universe. We say nothing existed before the big bang cause there was no before. The big Band was the start of time in this universe

Move back to entry proposed. seconder?

Seconded.

Galaxy Babe
Scout

Added to db

"The Big Bang was the start of time in this universe"

Precisely: "...in this universe".

I read recently in the 'New Scientist' that some very new ideas suggest that there may have been 'universes' throughout the cosmos before our little self-important ideas that ours is the 'beginning and the end': the one and only 'phenomenon' of such. These new ideas imply that time existed both before our Big Bang, and will probably exist after its 'demise'.
There is almost as much speculation and disagreement between cosmologists and astrophysisists about these questions as there is consensus. It's a little too patronizing to say I don't understand the basis of my own questions! I have read a great deal on the speculations of these questions in various scientific publications.