Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #22051 > unrolled thread

online gravitational field line explorer...

Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript

Contents

  online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-18 20:17 -0800
    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-18 23:21 -0800
    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2013-11-19 09:36 +0000
      Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-19 12:10 +0200
        Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Evertjan." <exjxw.hannivoort@interxnl.net> - 2013-11-19 11:01 +0000
          Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-19 13:33 +0200
            Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2013-11-19 07:44 -0800
              Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-19 16:53 +0100
              Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-19 12:03 -0800
        Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-19 16:11 +0000
          Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-19 19:21 +0200
            Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-20 15:48 +0000
              Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-20 19:15 +0200
                Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-21 20:19 +0000
                  Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-21 22:52 +0200
                    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-22 17:33 +0000
                      Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-22 19:50 +0200
                        Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-23 14:17 +0000
                      Dollar sign in identifier names (was: online gravitational field line explorer...) Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-11-22 19:49 +0100
                  Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-11-21 22:53 +0100
                    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-21 23:25 +0100
                    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-22 16:57 +0000
                      Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-22 19:12 +0200
                        Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-11-22 19:00 +0100
                          Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Jukka K. Korpela" <jkorpela@cs.tut.fi> - 2013-11-22 21:04 +0200
                            Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> - 2013-11-22 23:46 +0100
                              Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-11-23 01:21 +0100
                      Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-11-22 18:49 +0100
                        Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-22 20:06 +0100
                          Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-11-22 22:49 +0100
                            Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> - 2013-11-22 23:52 +0100
                              Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Eric Bednarz <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> - 2013-11-23 01:40 +0100
      Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-19 12:05 -0800
    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Tiger Sharktopus <tigersharktopus@gmail.com> - 2013-11-19 15:54 -0800
      Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 06:17 -0800
    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-20 19:47 +0000
      Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Michael Haufe (TNO)" <tno@thenewobjective.com> - 2013-11-20 17:43 -0800
    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-21 06:58 -0800
    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-22 12:56 -0800
      Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-23 18:15 +0000
        Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-24 13:38 -0800
          Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-25 20:47 +0000
            Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-25 19:51 -0800
              Re: online gravitational field line explorer... Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> - 2013-11-27 20:36 +0000
    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-11-29 20:56 -0800
    Re: online gravitational field line explorer... "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> - 2013-12-01 19:28 -0800

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

#22109

Eric Bednarz wrote:

> John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:
>> The legacy DOCTYPEs, by which I assume you mean SGML-like document
>> type declarations, say that the document is one of HTML 1 to 4.01.
> 
> I don't know what you know about SGML, but I remember that you know
> OOP. Please write this 500.000 times:
> SGML document type declarations have no "is a" semantics. TIA.

-v please
 
> What's more, there is no "HTML 1".

There was one, in a sense:

<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/historical>
<http://www.w3.org/MarkUp/draft-ietf-iiir-html-01.txt>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22136

On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:53:33 +0100, Eric Bednarz
<bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:

>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:
>
>> The legacy DOCTYPEs, by which I assume you mean SGML-like document
>> type declarations, say that the document is one of HTML 1 to 4.01.
>
>I don't know what you know about SGML, but I remember that you know
>OOP. Please write this 500.000 times:
>SGML document type declarations have no "is a" semantics. 

The HTML 4.01 standard says :
"A valid HTML document declares what version of HTML is used in the
document. The document type declaration names the document type
definition (DTD) in use for the document (see [ISO8879])."

Sounds pretty "is_a" to me. Of course, that's just the document syntax
but you can't have document semantics without syntax. (True for
programming languages as well).

>TIA.

You may wish to withdraw that.


>What's more, there is no "HTML 1".

But there are "HTML 1 to 4.01".

  John

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22137

2013-11-22 18:57, John Harris wrote:

> The HTML 4.01 standard says :

It is not a standard. There is an ISO HTML standard resembling it. Did 
you ever see it?

> "A valid HTML document declares what version of HTML is used in the
> document. The document type declaration names the document type
> definition (DTD) in use for the document (see [ISO8879])."

People who wrote that have little understanding of what SGML is, or they 
decided to try to present things in a simplified manner. This should be 
evident to anyone who ever tried to even glimpse over ISO 8879.

And in reality, HTML was never an SGML application. Lahn, the resident 
troll, has claimed otherwise but never provided any actual evidence, or 
even anything that is purported to look like evidence.

> But there are "HTML 1 to 4.01".

If HTML 1 never existed (it didn't), then such a range cannot exist a 
fortiori.

This is of course way off-topic for the group. (Well, the group is 
almost dead anyway, and will be even more so if the troll starts 
spamming his "regular FAQ postings", as it seems.)

Say, have you found any attempt at an excuse for a simulation of 
something that loos like an actual case where the use of <!DOCTYPE html> 
vs. a legacy doctype would matter the least to JavaScript?

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22142

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> And in reality, HTML was never an SGML application. Lahn, the resident
> troll, has claimed otherwise but never provided any actual evidence, or
> even anything that is purported to look like evidence.

From the HTML 4.01 specification, section 4.2[1]:

| HTML 4 is an SGML application conforming to International Standard
| ISO 8879 -- Standard Generalized Markup Language SGML (defined in
| [ISO8879]).

[1] <http://www.w3.org/TR/html401/conform.html>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22145

2013-11-22 20:00, Christoph Michael Becker wrote:

> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> And in reality, HTML was never an SGML application. Lahn, the resident
>> troll, has claimed otherwise but never provided any actual evidence, or
>> even anything that is purported to look like evidence.
>
>  From the HTML 4.01 specification, section 4.2[1]:
>
> | HTML 4 is an SGML application conforming to International Standard
> | ISO 8879 -- Standard Generalized Markup Language SGML (defined in
> | [ISO8879]).

The operative words are "in reality", as implied in my additional notes. 
There never was a single implementation of HTML that conformed ISO 8879.

If in doubt, check the following a) on an SGML markup validator, b) on 
your favorite browser, or any browser:

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
    "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd" [
  <!ENTITY hello "Hello world">]>
  <title/Hi!/
  <p>&hello;

-- 
Yucca, http://www.cs.tut.fi/~jkorpela/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22151

Jukka K. Korpela wrote:

> 2013-11-22 20:00, Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
> 
>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>
>>> And in reality, HTML was never an SGML application. Lahn, the resident
>>> troll, has claimed otherwise but never provided any actual evidence, or
>>> even anything that is purported to look like evidence.
>>
>>  From the HTML 4.01 specification, section 4.2[1]:
>>
>> | HTML 4 is an SGML application conforming to International Standard
>> | ISO 8879 -- Standard Generalized Markup Language SGML (defined in
>> | [ISO8879]).
> 
> The operative words are "in reality", as implied in my additional notes.
> There never was a single implementation of HTML that conformed ISO 8879.

Apples and oranges.  Saying XYZ is an SGML application does not mean
that XYZ is SGML.  I do not have access to ISO 8879, but I am confident
that the following is true[1]:

| Document markup languages defined using SGML are called
| "applications" by the standard

[1]
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Generalized_Markup_Language#Applications>

-- 
Christoph M. Becker

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22155

Christoph Michael Becker <cmbecker69@arcor.de> writes:

> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>
>> 2013-11-22 20:00, Christoph Michael Becker wrote:
>> 
>>> Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
>>>
>>>> And in reality, HTML was never an SGML application. [...]
>>>
>>>  From the HTML 4.01 specification, section 4.2[1]:
>>>
>>> | HTML 4 is an SGML application conforming to International Standard
>>> | ISO 8879 -- Standard Generalized Markup Language SGML (defined in
>>> | [ISO8879]).
>> 
>> The operative words are "in reality", as implied in my additional notes.
>> There never was a single implementation of HTML that conformed ISO 8879.
>
> Apples and oranges.  Saying XYZ is an SGML application does not mean
> that XYZ is SGML.

In lieu of reality, the operative word probably was "conforming".

> I do not have access to ISO 8879

Why would you? In a web development context, your guess is as good as
anybody else's.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22140

John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:

> On Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:53:33 +0100, Eric Bednarz
> <bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
>
>>John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:
>>
>>> The legacy DOCTYPEs, by which I assume you mean SGML-like document
>>> type declarations, say that the document is one of HTML 1 to 4.01.
>>
>>I don't know what you know about SGML, but I remember that you know
>>OOP. Please write this 500.000 times:
>>SGML document type declarations have no "is a" semantics. 
>
> The HTML 4.01 standard

If you are interested, I have a bridge for sale.

> says :
> "A valid HTML document declares what version of HTML is used in the
> document. The document type declaration names the document type
> definition (DTD) in use for the document (see [ISO8879])."

Yes, please, by all means, and let me emphasize that a bit, go
***SEE [ISO8879]***. It's a bloody normative reference, after all.

> Sounds pretty "is_a" to me.

<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.text.sgml/sMADjGyC0R4/gSoVLO495cMJ>

(Finding *anything* in Google Groups is an achievement well worth the
George Cross, you owe me a drink.)

>>TIA.
>
> You may wish to withdraw that.

Maybe in May.

-- 
It was the best of times,
it was the worst of times,
it was the age of HyTime.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22146

This is off-topic here.  F'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc.

Eric Bednarz wrote:

> John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:
>> Eric Bednarz<bednarz@fahr-zur-hoelle.org> wrote:
>>> John Harris <niam@jghnorth.org.uk.invalid> writes:
>>>> The legacy DOCTYPEs, by which I assume you mean SGML-like document
>>>> type declarations, say that the document is one of HTML 1 to 4.01.
>>> I don't know what you know about SGML, but I remember that you know
>>> OOP. Please write this 500.000 times:
>>> SGML document type declarations have no "is a" semantics.
>>
>> The HTML 4.01 standard
> 
> If you are interested, I have a bridge for sale.

HTML 4.01 was published by the W3C after it took over HTML development from 
the IETF/IESG [RFC2854].  The W3C works like an international 
standardization organization. [W3CAbout]  W3C Recommendations are called by 
them (ibid.) and considered by many people “Web standards”:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML5#Standardization_process> pp.
 
>> says :
>> "A valid HTML document declares what version of HTML is used in the
>> document. The document type declaration names the document type
>> definition (DTD) in use for the document (see [ISO8879])."
> 
> Yes, please, by all means, and let me emphasize that a bit, go
> ***SEE [ISO8879]***. It's a bloody normative reference, after all.

And the HTML 4.01 Specification, which had only achieved Recommendation 
status in 1999 because it was formally approved by the W3C Director and
Membership [W3CProc], is not?
 
>> Sounds pretty "is_a" to me.
> 
> 
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.text.sgml/sMADjGyC0R4/gSoVLO495cMJ>

I think the fact that you have to borrow arguments from other people in 
order to have an argument *at all* is indication that you have not thought 
this through.

The argument made there is flawed in the first place because a *declaration* 
is exactly that: a means to say (*declare*) “this is (supposed to be) a 
$SOMETHING”.  A *DOCTYPE* declaration says/declares “this is (supposed to 
be) a $SOMETHING *document*”, a *document* of a certain *type*.  The 
syntactical restrictions thus enforced (and not enforced) implicitly define 
the semantics (meaning) of the $SOMETHING; what the $SOMETHING *is*, what it 
*means*.  Hence DOCTYPE (Document *Type*) Declaration.  A type is a 
classification, a means to ascribe common properties to different objects.

The argument made there does not apply to HTML in particular because Valid 
HTML, at least in version 4.01, *excludes* the SGML feature (internal 
subset) that could put into doubt the intended type of a document.

See also:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/struct/global.html#h-7.2> 
(contains the full text partially quoted above)
<http://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/appendix/notes.html#sgmlfeatures>

<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#sec-prolog-dtd>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/REC-xhtml1-20020801/#strict>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2003/REC-SVG11-20030114/struct.html#NewDocument>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2010/REC-MathML3-20101021/appendixa.html#parsing.doctype>

etc.

This shows that a DOCTYPE declaration is in practice, at least for Web 
documents, much more than just a hint or relevant to syntax.  If the 
declaration and the content does not match, you are asking for trouble.

Compare:

<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-html5-20130806/syntax.html#writing>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/2013/CR-html5-20130806/syntax.html#syntax-doctype>
 
> (Finding *anything* in Google Groups is an achievement well worth the
> George Cross, you owe me a drink.)

ACK.

__________
[W3CAbout] World Wide Web Consortium (2012). “About W3C”.
           <http://www.w3.org/Consortium/>
[W3CProc]  World Wide Web Consortium (2005-10-14). “World Wide Web
           Consortium Process Document”. “7.4.5 Publication of a
           W3C Recommendation”.
           <http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/tr.html#rec-publication>
[RFC2854]  D. Connolly and L. Masinter (2000-06). “The 'text/html'
           Media Type”. RFC 2854 (INFORMATIONAL). The Internet Society.
           <http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2854.txt>
-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22150

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

> This is off-topic here.  F'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc.

No thanks, I don't read that. But this is to bizarre to just let go,
really. :-)

> <https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.text.sgml/sMADjGyC0R4/gSoVLO495cMJ>

> I think the fact that you have to borrow arguments from other people in 
> order to have an argument *at all*

Let me be the first to sympathize with your disapproval of "other
people". They are the worst.

> is indication that you have not thought 
> this through.

To be quite straightforward, I think you trying to look smarter than
Eliot Kimber is something *you* haven't thought through.

> The argument made there is flawed

As I said before, "of course it is" (because every argument you don't
agree with is pathologically flawed, did you ever notice that?).

> The argument made there does not apply to HTML in particular because Valid 
> HTML, at least in version 4.01, *excludes* the SGML feature (internal 
> subset)

I have three things to say about that:

1) Amazing. I think you either didn't read the article at all, or you
   didn't understand it at all. Which, at my end, amounts to the same
   thing.

2) You have an unfair advantage in a discussion like this, because you
   appear to have the divine power to make up vocabulary at will
   ("internal subset"?).

3) Naturally you are aware that the public text class 'DTD' in a formal
   public identifier, e.g. "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" means "document
   type declaration subset". See ISO 8879 clause 10.2.2.1.

> that could put into doubt the intended type of a document.

This supposed 'exclusion' constitutes one of the many reasons why HTML
is not a conforming application of SGML. 

Cf. ISO 8879, clauses 15.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2.

On the other hand, I suppose the ISO standard is just flawed (who's this
Goldfarb character anyway?).

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22153

Eric Bednarz wrote:

> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>> This is off-topic here.  F'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc.
> 
> No thanks, I don't read that. But this is to bizarre to just let go,
> really. :-)

I do not know exactly what *type* of fallacy that is, but it is one.  F'up2 
set again.  If you continue to post off-topic, I will ignore your posting.
(You should not misconstrue that as indication that you are right or have 
“won” the discussion, then.)
 
>> 
<https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/comp.text.sgml/sMADjGyC0R4/gSoVLO495cMJ>
> 
>> I think the fact that you have to borrow arguments from other people in
>> order to have an argument *at all*
> 
> Let me be the first to sympathize with your disapproval of "other
> people". They are the worst.

Argument at ridicule.
 
>> is indication that you have not thought this through.
> 
> To be quite straightforward, I think you trying to look smarter than
> Eliot Kimber is something *you* haven't thought through.

Argument at authority.
 
>> The argument made there is flawed
> 
> As I said before, "of course it is" (because every argument you don't
> agree with is pathologically flawed, did you ever notice that?).

Argumentum ad hominem.

>> The argument made there does not apply to HTML in particular because
>> Valid HTML, at least in version 4.01, *excludes* the SGML feature
>> (internal subset)
> 
> I have three things to say about that:
> 
> 1) Amazing. I think you either didn't read the article at all, or you
>    didn't understand it at all. Which, at my end, amounts to the same
>    thing.

I have read it, and I think I have understood it well enough to see that it 
does not apply in this case *at least*.
 
> 2) You have an unfair advantage in a discussion like this, because you
>    appear to have the divine power to make up vocabulary at will
>    ("internal subset"?).

You want to read at least one of

<http://xml.coverpages.org/sgmlprodAgnew.html>
<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-xml/#wfc-PEinInternalSubset>
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Document_type_definition#Associating_DTDs_with_documents>

For a start.
 
> 3) Naturally you are aware that the public text class 'DTD' in a formal
>    public identifier, e.g. "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN" means "document
>    type declaration subset". See ISO 8879 clause 10.2.2.1.

See above.
 
>> that could put into doubt the intended type of a document.
> 
> This supposed 'exclusion' constitutes one of the many reasons why HTML
> is not a conforming application of SGML.

It is not a *supposed* exclusion, it is a definitive one.  HTML (4.01 at 
least) is *intended* to be not extensible that way.  (Which is why there is 
XHTML, and now are “data-” attributes in HTML5.)  Whether that makes it not 
a conforming application of SGML or is instead a result of its SGML 
declaration I gladly leave for other people to decide.

<http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/sgmldecl.html> and similar documents 
suffice for me to accept the fact that HTML was at least intended to be an 
application of SGML.  (The prose has it, too.)

<http://www.is-thought.co.uk/book/home.htm> pp. might also be helpful there.
 
> Cf. ISO 8879, clauses 15.2, 15.2.1 and 15.2.2.
> 
> On the other hand, I suppose the ISO standard is just flawed (who's this
> Goldfarb character anyway?).

Argument at ridicule (and at authority) again.  That said, Charles F. 
Goldfarb would be the first to tell you that having *semantical* documents 
was the very reason why he helped creating GML and later SGML.  No wait, he 
has written it down:

<http://www.sgmlsource.com/history/roots.htm>

-- 
PointedEars

Twitter: @PointedEars2
Please do not Cc: me. / Bitte keine Kopien per E-Mail.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22156

Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:

> Eric Bednarz wrote:
>
>> Thomas 'PointedEars' Lahn <PointedEars@web.de> writes:
>>> This is off-topic here.  F'up2 comp.infosystems.www.authoring.misc.
>> 
>> No thanks, I don't read that. But this is to bizarre to just let go,
>> really. :-)
>
> I do not know exactly what *type* of fallacy that is, but it is one.  F'up2 
> set again.  If you continue to post off-topic, I will ignore your posting.

Fair enough, I hereby fulfill my part of that agreement.

> (You should not misconstrue that as indication that you are right or have 
> “won” the discussion, then.)

I made a terrible typo above, that apparently rendered my entire message
completely illegible: "to bizarre" was intended to read "too bizarre".

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22075

> "Evertjan."  wrote in message 
> news:XnsA27D6BFBA4A12eejj99@194.109.133.246...

> Chris M. Thomasson wrote on 19 nov 2013 in comp.lang.javascript:

> > I have created a pre-alpha version of my online gravitational field line
> > explorer:
> >
> > http://webpages.charter.net/appcore/fractal/field

> Why?

> <!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01//EN"
> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/strict.dtd">
> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" lang="en">

> and

> <canvas id="TTRCanvas">
> Your browser does not support the HTML5 canvas tag.
> </canvas>

> in stead of:

> <!DOCTYPE html>
> <html>

Thank you so much  for taking a look and finding this issue. As to why,
well, I was too "focused" on the plotting algorithm itself. I will resolve 
the
issue ASAP!

:^o


Thanks again Evertjan. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22077

Chris -- this is some really cool stuff.

I have some questions about gravitational pull as you think about it.  It appears that you are using the theory of relativity to determine that at some point there is a threshold for gravitational lensing.  What is this based on? 

Tiger


On Monday, November 18, 2013 8:17:46 PM UTC-8, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
> I have created a pre-alpha version of my online gravitational field line
> 
> explorer:
> 
> 
> 
> http://webpages.charter.net/appcore/fractal/field
> 
> 
> 
> This is hard-coded to six points. You can set the (x, y) coordinates and
> 
> their mass. Click the `Render' button to draw the damn thing. You can
> 
> also alter the number of lines per "positive mass" point and iterations...
> 
> 
> 
> I was wondering what you all think of it?
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, I am also going to integrate this with my online circle intersection
> 
> fractal explorer:
> 
> 
> 
> http://webpages.charter.net/appcore/fractal/ttr
> 
> 
> 
> So than one can plot a gravity field on its fractal points. Also, I am
> 
> going to add support for equipotential field lines and flexible numbers
> 
> of mass points...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enjoy!
> 
> 
> 
> ;^)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22097

> "Tiger Sharktopus"  wrote in message
> news:47928ac0-c079-409d-9f3f-
> 4e2cc0485405@googlegroups.com...


>> On Monday, November 18, 2013 8:17:46 PM UTC-8,
>> Chris M. Thomasson wrote:
>>
>> I have created a pre-alpha version of my online
>> gravitational field line
explorer:
>> [...]

> Chris -- this is some really cool stuff.

Thank you so much for the very kind comment.

:^)


FWIW, I noticed that the code is allowing for
negative masses! This is because I derived it
directly from an experimental electromagnetic
field plotter I am also working on and totally
forgot that the negative charges would be
interpreted as negative masses. Yikes!


However, there does seem to be some sort of
connection between plotting all positive
charges, and plotting all positive masses.
Of course, the field lines travel in opposite
directions, but the end graphical results are
strikingly similar...




> I have some questions about gravitational pull
> as you think about it. It appears that you
> are using the theory of relativity to determine
> that at some point there is a threshold for
> gravitational lensing.

I hope the following does not come across as
100% totally moronic. I am not a physicist!

:^o


AFAICT, the “intersections” between the gravitational
and associated equipotential field lines heading
toward a positive mass point ends up creating some
sort of “3d like grid”. This grid seems to be going
down, deeper and deeper toward the mass. The
circumferences of concentric “circular shapes” formed
by the equipotential field lines get smaller when
they are closer to the point of mass. IMVHO, this is
fairly similar to a contour map that measures how
“deep” a given region of terrain is. In this case,
the depth of a region describes how close it is to
the mass. So, it seems as if the shape of the “gravity
grid” has the capability to make the paths of passing
electromagnetic field lines want to “fall down” into
the mass...


Lets say a photon P originating from a source O is
traveling through space along a path that happens
to be vectored toward a massive object M. Even
though P has no mass, its momentum along the path
seems to get attracted to its nearest contour line
of M's gravity grid. The depth of this contour line
influences the level of attraction it has on the
path of P. If the depth is very shallow, the “falling”
effect will be so small that its "virtually" non-
existent. However, when P travels close enough to
one of the “deeper” contour lines emanating from
M, the alteration of its path will become more
intensely directed down toward M. The end result
of this process can influence an observer of P to
erroneously conclude that it must have originated
from a source in a region of space that is nowhere
near O.




Now, I am not exactly sure what you mean by
“threshold”. Can you clarify it a bit?


AFAICT, the gravity grid generated by M should extend
out across space. Therefore, it should “always” have
an effect on the paths of every photon passing though
it. So, in a sense, there is no “threshold”?


Humm...


[...] 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22085

In comp.lang.javascript message <l6eopc$2qr$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Mon,
18 Nov 2013 20:17:46, Chris M. Thomasson <no@spam.invalid> posted:

>I have created a pre-alpha version of my online gravitational field
>line
>explorer:
>
>http://webpages.charter.net/appcore/fractal/field
>

Needs a link to its parent, etc., pages.

If that sort of thing interests you, so might parts of what is indexed
at <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pbagragf.htm#ast>, in which the file
name part is ROT-13.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK.  Mail via homepage.  Turnpike v6.05  MIME.
  Web  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQqish topics, acronyms and links;
  Astro stuff via astron-1.htm, gravity0.htm ; quotings.htm, pascal.htm, etc.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22087

On Wednesday, November 20, 2013 1:47:03 PM UTC-6, Dr J R Stockton wrote:
>
> If that sort of thing interests you, so might parts of what is indexed
> 
> at <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pbagragf.htm#ast>, in which the file
> 
> name part is ROT-13.

For the lazy among us:

function rot13(c){
    return c.replace(/([a-m])|([n-z])/ig, function($0,$1,$2){
    return $1 ? String.fromCharCode($1.charCodeAt(0) + 13) :
    $2 ? String.fromCharCode($2.charCodeAt(0) - 13) : $0; });
}

rot13("pbagragf")

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22098

> "Chris M. Thomasson"  wrote in message 
> news:l6eopc$2qr$1@speranza.aioe.org...

> I have created a pre-alpha version of my online gravitational field line
> explorer:

> http://webpages.charter.net/appcore/fractal/field

[...]

I have fixed the issue with the DOCTYPE and it is now passing
validation:

http://validator.w3.org/check?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwebpages.charter.net%2Fappcore%2Ffractal%2Ffield%2F


It also passes CSS validation:

http://jigsaw.w3.org/css-validator/validator?uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwebpages.charter.net%2Fappcore%2Ffractal%2Ffield%2F


;^) 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22148

> "Chris M. Thomasson"  wrote in message 
> news:l6eopc$2qr$1@speranza.aioe.org... [...]

FWIW, I have updated the online code wrt the equipotential field generating
algorithm. It seems a little more "balanced" now. Also, I have added the
ability to plot the gravity field and/or the equipotential field.

http://webpages.charter.net/appcore/fractal/field



However, I am still allowing for so called "negative" mass points. I know
its not allowed within the realm of a gravitational field scheme, but since
the end result of rendering seems to be so "related" to negative electrical
charges, I have decide to keep it around. I was thinking of reporting an 
error
in the user settings for negative mass points.

Humm...


Also, thank you all for helping me fix my damn DOCTYPE error!

:^D 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#22165

In comp.lang.javascript message <l6ogfd$5h2$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Fri,
22 Nov 2013 12:56:49, Chris M. Thomasson <no@spam.invalid> posted:

>
>
>However, I am still allowing for so called "negative" mass points. I know
>its not allowed within the realm of a gravitational field scheme, but since
>the end result of rendering seems to be so "related" to negative electrical
>charges, I have decide to keep it around. I was thinking of reporting
>an error
>in the user settings for negative mass points.


You should put a checkbox or a pair of radio-buttons to determine
whether a negative value is allowed, and also allow the user to
determine whether legends should be gravitational or electrical or
magnetic.

Have another control to determine whether the total "charge" has to be
zero.

Then you may find that you have killed three birds with only very
slightly more than one stone.

-- 
 (c) John Stockton, near London.                Mail ?.?.Stockton@physics.org
  Web  <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQish topics, acronyms, and links.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript

csiph-web