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?

"WGD" <wgd.roaming@verizon.net> 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" <wgd.roaming@verizon.net> 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

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.

In uk.sci.astronomy onegod <spamone@msn.com> writted:
: Actually numbers are already log...
: for example...
: 100000000
: 1000000000
: 10000000000000000000
: 100000000000000000000000000

Those are not the logarithms, those are the numbers.

Gavin Whittaker wrote:

In uk.sci.astronomy onegod <spamone@msn.com> 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.
Which is why people simply use exponential notation for astronomical