There seems to be a misunderstanding in the phrasing of your question. "Discussion non-accelerated rectilinear motion" isn't a recognized scientific theory. Let's break down the terms to understand the concept:

* Rectilinear motion: This refers to motion along a straight line.

* Non-accelerated: This means the object's velocity remains constant; it doesn't speed up or slow down.

Therefore, "non-accelerated rectilinear motion" simply describes an object moving at a constant speed in a straight line.

Here's what we can "discuss" about non-accelerated rectilinear motion:

* Newton's First Law of Motion: This law states that an object at rest stays at rest, and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Non-accelerated rectilinear motion is a direct consequence of this law.

* Absence of Forces: For an object to move in a straight line at constant speed, the net force acting on it must be zero. This is because any force would cause an acceleration, changing the object's velocity.

* Examples: Many examples of non-accelerated rectilinear motion exist in our everyday lives. A car traveling at a steady speed on a straight highway, a ball rolling across a smooth surface, or a satellite in a stable orbit around the Earth.

There is no specific "theory" of non-accelerated rectilinear motion, as it's a simple consequence of fundamental physics principles.

Let me know if you have any other questions or would like to discuss specific examples!