Logarithmic light year scale...

I have devised this convenient Logarithmic light year scale i.e. distances
as Log10 (light years) with some examples:-

10 - Size of Universe [~10.1]
9 - The closest quasar 3C273 [9.3]
8 - Size of Leo Supercluster [8.7]
7 - Size of Virgo supercluster [7.7]
6 - Nearest Spiral Galaxy [6.3]
5 - Size of Milky Way [5.0]
4 - Distance to centre of Milky Way [4.7]
3 - Nearest black hole V4641 Sgr [3.2]
2 - Size of Carina Nebula [~2.3]
1 - Distance to Altair [1.2]
0 - The closest star Proxima Centuri [0.6]

This seems to be a much better system for expressing cosmological distances
than straight light years - any comments

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? When linear, and in the case of this science, the mind is
allowed to see objects far afield more clearly (figuratively speaking). At
least that is where I am coming from!

BTW, my family - many, many years ago - had close ties to a Horton family I
believe was located in the Carolinas (originally from Rutherford, NJ). Any
relation?

Wayne


"Robert Horton" wrote in message
...
I have devised this convenient Logarithmic light year scale i.e. distances
as Log10 (light years) with some examples:-

10 - Size of Universe [~10.1]
9 - The closest quasar 3C273 [9.3]
8 - Size of Leo Supercluster [8.7]
7 - Size of Virgo supercluster [7.7]
6 - Nearest Spiral Galaxy [6.3]
5 - Size of Milky Way [5.0]
4 - Distance to centre of Milky Way [4.7]
3 - Nearest black hole V4641 Sgr [3.2]
2 - Size of Carina Nebula [~2.3]
1 - Distance to Altair [1.2]
0 - The closest star Proxima Centuri [0.6]

This seems to be a much better system for expressing cosmological
distances
than straight light years - any comments

"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

So does Mr. Horton's suggestion make sense?
Wayne

"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

"WGD" wrote
So does Mr. Horton's suggestion make sense?
Wayne

It is not without merit. How fussy do you want to get?

Perhaps ultimately, its utility depends on how you yourself
think; the quantities themselves are unaffected by whether you
choose to think of them in terms of ratios w.r.t. other familar
quantities (logarithmic, dB), or linarly, in which cse your mind
needs to be prepared to accommodate a bit of bending.

Perhaps neither one is better than the other; though maybe one is more
compatible with how we quantify and visualise values whose ranges span
multiple decades.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

Actually numbers are already log...

for example...

100000000
1000000000
10000000000000000000
100000000000000000000000000

After a while, numbers represent magnitue like a horizontal bar graph.
Same as scientific notation...

1.12 E 5 = 1.12 X 10 ^ 5

etc.

so, i dont see much benefit in log...

like (1 E) 10.2




"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

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
:
:

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!

Yes, and I omitted the best example of all from my post on this
subject: The human perception of the pitch of audio frequencies.

That, IMO is the best, most demonstrable example of the logarithmic
nature of the response of our sensors.

At 50Hz, a change of 5Hz is easily audible. At 12000Hz, I reckon you
could forget about noticing it. Above about 15kHz, you just hear it
or you don't; there's no real detectable change in perceived pitch, from
what I remember.

As a kid, I spent an inordinate amount of time playing with an
8038-based AF signal generator my Dad had either got from work, or
constructed himself (not sure which, now). It was built from two
PCBs from R.S.; one was the 8038 circuit itself, and the other
the mains to DC PSU. That thing gave me a good feel for audio
frequencies, and and the different "sound" of sinusoid waveforms
compared to the harmonic-rich triangular and square waveforms.
And it had a delicious 10-turn wirewound pot to change the frequency!

Such were the "toys" I look back on most fondly.


Martin
--
M.A.Poyser Tel.: 07967 110890
Manchester, U.K. http://www.fleetie.demon.co.uk

Gavin Whittaker wrote:

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.


But the lengths of written integers, i.e. the number of digits in their
representations, do correspond roughly to their common logarithms.

--
Odysseus