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

But of course!

Did you decide that this entry is ready for picking?
Or, do we still have some unresolved matters directly related to it?

Post 38! Post 38!

Once that's done, _then_ I would say it is ready for picking.

Hi BB:

I rather liked the idea of that first header as a subhead for the title, but it works at least as well where I have placed it.

I think I covered all the caps and changes to header.

I'd say this is OK now. I'll suggest that the Sub-Editor grab the new copy.

Thanks again!

We now consider this ready for picking.
I think Gnomon's technique has merit, you know.

Absolument, mon ami.

Your Guide Entry has just been picked from Peer Review by one of our Scouts, and is now heading off into the Editorial Process, which ends with publication in the Edited Guide. We've therefore moved this Review Conversation out of Peer Review and to the entry itself.

If you'd like to know what happens now, check out the page on 'What Happens after your Entry has been Recommended?' at EditedGuide-Process. We hope this explains everything.

Thanks for contributing to the Edited Guide!

Felicitations! I knew my recommendation would be accepted.

Phew! I kinda wondered about this one?!

Thanks for your support!

Pimms

I am subbing this at A3006307

Anything I need to know?

I *tried* reading the PR thread but it is way over my head!!!

Mort

Yes, Mort, it's often been over my head as well I'm afraid?!

BB did give me a massive flash of ideas when he talked of Plank units, and I then read the bit suggesting the theory's association with Relativity. But, it passed by so fast that I couldn't catch the details of my own epiphany!

Woe is me! It seemed quite insightful and relevant!!!!

I guess I'll have to see if BB leaves any gaps that would justify an entry on Bi-Directional Time as relates to the Theory of Relativity.

Meanwhile, I hope you grabbed the most recent version.

Much of that of which I spoke in the PR thread has now been concatenated and appropriately compiled in my entry concerning the Nature of Time - A2896329.

Mort, Please see posting 51!

BB, thanks for the link! This is a fine read and I enjoyed it thoroughly.

The 'schema' you described seems to be similar to the concept of filtered perceptions, a nice addition.

I particularly liked the part about 'reversed-time regions', as it is a concept occasionally mentioned to me. I have more arguments against it than I have heard for it, but that doesn't mean it is impossible.

Just curious:
'Is time digital like the frames of a movie, or does it flow continuously?'
Weren't you the one that brought up Planck units of time?? I thought I'd see some mention of it here.



PS: Just a note ...
'Because of our two-dimensional eyes,...'
I have three dimensional eyes, with binocular 3D vision. it is the individual eye that is limited to a two dimensional interpretation.

Yes, I did bring up Planck units of time because that is the standard interpretation of time in most physical theories nowadays. But it isn't really proven, and so the debate of continuous vs. discrete space-time is still an issue.


"I have three dimensional eyes, with binocular 3D vision. it is the individual eye that is limited to a two dimensional interpretation."

I don't doubt your visual facilities, but when I say that we have 2D eyes, I mean that we have 2D retinae. Perhaps I ought to change it. Despite the fact that we have binocular and peripheral vision which tells us that our environment is 3D, what we see with our eyes can easily be translated into a flat 2D photograph. If we had 3D retinae, making a flat photograph of our environment would be as difficult as drawing a cube on a 1D piece of paper.

If you'd like to comment more on it, perhaps we should go back to the PR forum in question...?

BB, Hi!

It wasn't a serious criticism of your style or choice of terminology. Feel free to ignore it. I was just being something of a stickler. For instance, what we see (with binocular vision) can be converted better to a 3d Stereograph. The 2d photograph is a cruder representation of what we 'see'.

It occurs to me to wonder though if you thought of bringing up the concept of '3d' holographic images that fool the eye. Probably not worthwhile, as vision isn't really the subject of the piece.

I do understand that the retina represents a flat plane of sensors, so there is no problem referring to 2d vision, even if the retina itself is a 3d object.

How does the song go? 'Don't change a hair for me, not if you care for me'? Your stuff is great just the way it is.