Difference between revisions of "Ghyll talk:Sarfelogian Mountains"
m (Altitude Adjustments & Note.) |
|||
| Line 6: | Line 6: | ||
<table class="ghyllidx" style="padding-left:1em;"> | <table class="ghyllidx" style="padding-left:1em;"> | ||
<tr><th>Mountain Name</th><th>Height (lunanits)</th><th>Height (meters)</th></tr> | <tr><th>Mountain Name</th><th>Height (lunanits)</th><th>Height (meters)</th></tr> | ||
| − | <tr><td>Mount Yurch </td><td align="center"> | + | <tr><td>Mount Yurch </td><td align="center">118.4</td><td align="center">3,752.8</td></tr> |
| − | <tr><td>Mount Rotyg </td><td align="center"> | + | <tr><td>Mount Rotyg </td><td align="center">93.2</td><td align="center">2,952.8</td></tr> |
| − | <tr><td>Kluvat Peak </td><td align="center"> | + | <tr><td>Kluvat Peak </td><td align="center">70.7</td><td align="center">2,239.7</td></tr> |
</table> | </table> | ||
| Line 18: | Line 18: | ||
I am going to propose a mad edit conversion of increasing the heights of all of the natural landmarks of Ghyll by a multiple of 10. That will provide for the least amount of math and the simplist conversion. --[[User:DrAckroyd|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 11:47, 27 Apr 2005 (EDT) | I am going to propose a mad edit conversion of increasing the heights of all of the natural landmarks of Ghyll by a multiple of 10. That will provide for the least amount of math and the simplist conversion. --[[User:DrAckroyd|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 11:47, 27 Apr 2005 (EDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Mad edit done. Mount Yurch, Mount Rotyg and the Sarfelogians are now 10 times taller. --[[User:DrAckroyd|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 12:57, 8 May 2005 (EDT) | ||
Revision as of 12:57, 8 May 2005
In Mount Yurch, we discover it is the tallest mountain in Ghyll ("Mount Yurch is 18,764 nanits tall, making it about 4,000 nanits taller than Mount Rotyg"). Your particular entry, however, makes Kluvat Peak about ten times bigger than that: 16 (nanits) * 9 (unanits) * 11 (kunanit) * 70.7 (lunanits) = 110800 (nanits). Is that the right calculation? If so, this entry would need to be revised: a) use nanits for a measurement, b) make sure it's smaller than 14,764 nanits. --Morbus Iff 08:56, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)
Using my math I get 70.7 * 11 * 9 * 16 = 111988.8 nanits but that still makes it taller. I used an actual mountain in the Appalacians for my model - Mt. Mitchell which is 2,037 meters tall or (2037 / 1000 / 20 = ) 101850 nanits which is reduced to 64.3 lunanits (I musta futzed the math when I originally wrote the entry). The Grimm Mr Yurch is a mere (18764 * 20 /1000 =) 375 meters tall. Hardly a daunting climb by my reckoning. Perhaps nanits aren't the best measurements for mountains after all? Nevermind, I'll revise my entry. --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 13:57, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)
| Mountain Name | Height (lunanits) | Height (meters) |
|---|---|---|
| Mount Yurch | 118.4 | 3,752.8 |
| Mount Rotyg | 93.2 | 2,952.8 |
| Kluvat Peak | 70.7 | 2,239.7 |
By moving the decimal in the lunanit measurement I get a new conversion of 11,198.88 nanits for Kluvat Peak. I still think that measuring a Mountain in nanits is sort of like measuring it in inches. If you really want it in nanits I'll comply. --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 14:01, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)
I'm fine with lunaits. --Morbus Iff 15:06, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)
Yeah, I would have to agree. The tallest mountain I've climbed, Mt. Kenya, is 5199m. By comparison, Mt. Yurch appears to be a speedbump. Let's fix this. --DrBacchus 15:11, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)
I am going to propose a mad edit conversion of increasing the heights of all of the natural landmarks of Ghyll by a multiple of 10. That will provide for the least amount of math and the simplist conversion. --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 11:47, 27 Apr 2005 (EDT)
Mad edit done. Mount Yurch, Mount Rotyg and the Sarfelogians are now 10 times taller. --Dr. H. L. Ackroyd 12:57, 8 May 2005 (EDT)
