Ghyll talk:Sarfelogian Mountains
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 | 11.84 | 375.28 |
| Mount Rotyg | 9.32 | 295.28 |
| Kluvat Peak | 7.07 | 223.97 |
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)
