In uk.sci.astronomy onegod writted:
: Actually numbers are already log...
: for example...
: 100000000
: 1000000000
: 10000000000000000000
: 100000000000000000000000000

Those are not the logarithms, those are the numbers.

: After a while, numbers represent magnitue like a horizontal bar graph.
: Same as scientific notation...
: 1.12 E 5 = 1.12 X 10 ^ 5

ditto.

: etc.
: so, i dont see much benefit in log...
: like (1 E) 10.2

Try fitting the electromagnetic spectrum from 1Hz up to
1000000000000000000000000Hz on a linear scale. It's the same problem,
unless you *really* want to emphasise the significance of gamma
radiation!

This has been done before in many textbooks, though. I happen to have
Nigel Calder's book, 'The Key to the Universe', from the 1977 BBC TV series,
on my desk and on p18 there is a logarithmic scaling of distances from nuclei
to the observable universe. The numbers on the scale are logs of light
years (and light seconds) and , although not as neatly presented as in the
present case, the same principle is there.
Sorry to have located prior art, but there it is...

ATB, Gavin




: "Fleetie" wrote in message
: ...
: "WGD" wrote in message
: While an interesting approach, 'we' may have problems 'seeing' something
: logarithmically. What sense of feel do we humans have when data is laid
: out
: in that fashion?
:
: Our senses have a(n approximately) logarithmic response.
:
: Perceived loudness is not linear in intensity. Perceived
: brightness isn't either, though the visual system has some
: anomalies, like photopic/scotopic vision, chemical enhancement
: of retinal sensitivity in low light conditions, dynamic
: "grouping"/"paralleling" of proximate detectors' outputs in
: low light to increase sensitivity at the expense of resolution,
: etc..
:
: To a lesser extent, the other, less important senses too, I
: suspect.
:
:
: Martin
: --
: M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967
: 110890
: Manchester, U.K.
: http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk
:
: