Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.lang.javascript > #22051 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2013-11-18 20:17 -0800 |
| Last post | 2013-12-01 19:28 -0800 |
| Articles | 6 on this page of 46 — 10 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.lang.javascript
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 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-24 13:38 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <l6trl6$640$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #22165 |
> "Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message > news:FwpnXI5EDPkSFwA5@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid... >> 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. Basically, you have read a part of my mind Dr. Stockton! :^) FWIW, and IMVVHO, I prefer checkboxes because an "all checks cleared" condition can be used to trigger a "unique state of action". As for radio buttons, lets say two of them, there are only two states. AFAICT, with checkboxes, there are three states, therefore one can possibly save some UI real estate here? > Have another control to determine whether the total "charge" has to be > zero. You mean have a condition that enforces whether or not all of the mass points add to one, or zero? I can see this resulting in a data table that can be used for “probability factors” in various algorithms... Perhaps one can embed an iterated function system based on the probability wave generated by the values of the masses within the space. You assign a function to each mass; run the IFS and plot the fractal; plot the field on the resulting fractal points, and carefully examine the results... Therefore, the IFS is directly “gained” through the mass/charge values, and the field is plotted on those points. AFAICT, the final end result is that the field generates a fractal that it directly integrated with end field lines... > Then you may find that you have killed three birds with only very > slightly more than one stone. __Very_Good_Point__ :^) Thank you!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-25 20:47 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <K0ZkWM4Hd7kSFwAS@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> |
| In reply to | #22173 |
In comp.lang.javascript message <l6trl6$640$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Sun, 24 Nov 2013 13:38:50, Chris M. Thomasson <no@spam.invalid> posted: >> "Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message >> news:FwpnXI5EDPkSFwA5@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid... > >>> 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. > >Basically, you have read a part of my mind Dr. Stockton! > >:^) > > >FWIW, and IMVVHO, I prefer checkboxes because an "all checks >cleared" condition can be used to trigger a "unique state of action". >As for radio buttons, lets say two of them, there are only two states. >AFAICT, with checkboxes, there are three states, therefore one can >possibly save some UI real estate here? Basically, a checkbox and a pair of radiobuttons, if initialised appropriately, are equivalent. But, in some cases, one may be easier to label nicely than the other. With radiobuttons, one can initialise to neither/none being on, or, for purists, to a hidden button being on. That, with a bit of code, can force the user to _make_ a choice. >> Have another control to determine whether the total "charge" has to be >> zero. > >You mean have a condition that enforces whether or not all of the >mass points add to one, or zero? I can see this resulting in a data >table that can be used for “probability factors” in various algorithms... The code might as well handle the general case, unless some great difficulty results. For electric charges, one can have a non-zero net charge; but one might want not to. Practical masses always have a positive sum. Magnetic poles always sum to zero, until monopoles are found. With radiobuttons, you can provide an extra option, in which the conditions and legends can be read from, say, a textarea. Then your code can be used for purposes that you know nothing about. -- (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]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-25 19:51 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <l715tr$kso$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #22182 |
> "Dr J R Stockton" wrote in message > news:K0ZkWM4Hd7kSFwAS@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid... > In comp.lang.javascript message <l6trl6$640$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Sun, > 24 Nov 2013 13:38:50, Chris M. Thomasson <no@spam.invalid> posted: > [...] > >FWIW, and IMVVHO, I prefer checkboxes because an "all checks > >cleared" condition can be used to trigger a "unique state of action". > >As for radio buttons, lets say two of them, there are only two states. > >AFAICT, with checkboxes, there are three states, therefore one can > >possibly save some UI real estate here? > Basically, a checkbox and a pair of radiobuttons, if initialised > appropriately, are equivalent. But, in some cases, one may be easier to > label nicely than the other. > With radiobuttons, one can initialise to neither/none being on, or, for > purists, to a hidden button being on. That, with a bit of code, can > force the user to _make_ a choice. IMVHO, the choice contained within the state can be “compressed” within a single checkbox element. Therefore, one can potentially save some UI “real estate” wrt expressing the mutating conditions controlled by the UI controls. Is that a fair statement in any way, shape or form? > >> Have another control to determine whether the total "charge" has to be > >> zero. > > > >You mean have a condition that enforces whether or not all of the > >mass points add to one, or zero? I can see this resulting in a data > >table that can be used for “probability factors” in various algorithms... > The code might as well handle the general case, unless some great > difficulty results. For electric charges, one can have a non-zero net > charge; but one might want not to. Practical masses always have a > positive sum. Magnetic poles always sum to zero, until monopoles are > found. I will definitely create the controls to realize all of the aspects/features you have so kindly listed wrt the various behaviors of the application. AFAICT, once all of this is done, it should be a fairly decent piece of online software... ;^) > With radiobuttons, you can provide an extra option, in which the > conditions and legends can be read from, say, a textarea. Then your > code can be used for purposes that you know nothing about. I think I will use them to select what fractal algorithm the field of mass points are derived from. I can also use the state of two radio buttons to define a brand new meaning for all of the checkboxes... Humm. Then again, I could use a panel of checkboxes to define mutations to the checkboxes... Humm... Anyway, thank you so much for all of the excellent input! :^) --------------------------------------- BTW, wrt plotting electrical field lines flowing through a gravity grid... Will we be able to visualize a lensing effect wrt the resulting graph of the photons? Humm... I think the software will be able to graph visualizations of it! I hope they are not in error... :^o Anyway, thank you so much for taking an interest.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dr J R Stockton <reply1300@merlyn.demon.co.uk.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-27 20:36 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <VfmTs$t8ellSFwIJ@invalid.uk.co.demon.merlyn.invalid> |
| In reply to | #22184 |
In comp.lang.javascript message <l715tr$kso$1@speranza.aioe.org>, Mon, 25 Nov 2013 19:51:34, Chris M. Thomasson <no@spam.invalid> posted: >IMVHO, the choice contained within the state can be “compressed” >within a single checkbox element. Therefore, one can potentially >save some UI “real estate” wrt expressing the mutating conditions >controlled by the UI controls. Is that a fair statement in any way, >shape or form? True but not fair. A checkbox is smaller than multiple radiobuttons. But the space actually taken is usually dominated by the necessary legends, and the legends for two radiobuttons can easily need less space than those for one checkbox. Use the type of control which can best be made understandable, with if you like the assistance of surrounding box borders or colouring. -- (c) John Stockton, nr London, UK. For Mail, see Home Page. Turnpike, WinXP. Web <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/> - FAQ-type topics, acronyms, and links. Command-prompt MiniTrue is useful for viewing/searching/altering files. Free, DOS/Win/UNIX now 2.0.6; see my <http://www.merlyn.demon.co.uk/pc-links.htm>.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-11-29 20:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <l7br5k$jdj$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #22051 |
> "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: [...] FWIW, I have updated the online code for the pre-alpha version of my gravity field line explorer to allow for directional arrows showing the vector of flow. The attached image is a "gravitational dipole" where there is a "negative" mass directly below a positive mass (0.5, -0.5). I also added the ability to turn off a point by setting its mass to zero... http://webpages.charter.net/appcore/fractal/field Example rendering: https://plus.google.com/101799841244447089430/posts/Zmgvbi9QbKp Notice how the arrows are pointing toward the positive mass points? This are the directly opposite of electrical field lines. I am going to allow one to plot a gravity field and electrical field together and see gravitational lensing in action... ;^)
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Chris M. Thomasson" <no@spam.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2013-12-01 19:28 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <l7gup7$4l7$1@speranza.aioe.org> |
| In reply to | #22051 |
I think I fixed a bug in the equipotential portion of my plotting algorithm. Before, the lines in blue did not really show off symmetry. It erroneously plotted more lines per point and at different starting radiuses. This attached plot looks like the equipotentials in blue are fixed... Here is some further context on the issue: https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/sci.math/thomasson/sci.math/QMOKhb3xwWg/pwXELKGU8GUJ Where a James Waldby found, and reported the problem with the symmetry. Here is a rendering of the corrected equipotential field: http://webpages.charter.net/appcore/fractal/field/samples/equip_bug_fix_1.jpg I added a new control where a user can set the starting radius for the equipotential field. The problem with the bugged code was that I was starting equip-field lines at different radiuses for each point!
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Page 3 of 3 — ← Prev page 1 2 [3]
Back to top | Article view | comp.lang.javascript
csiph-web