|
|
| (9 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
| − | 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. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 08:56, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)
| + | '''Note''': The inline link and mention of [[orthogonality]] has been removed due to recent updates per my timestamp. Regardless of today's world, [[orthogonality]] was still a valid satisfaction of the rules at the time the entry was written, so we've not modified the '''Citations''' line. --[[User:Morbus Iff|Morbus Iff]] 19:03, 25 May 2005 (EDT) |
| − | | |
| − | 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. --[[User:DrAckroyd|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 13:57, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)
| |
| − | | |
| − | <table class="ghyllidx" style="padding-left:1em;">
| |
| − | <tr><th>Mountain Name</th><th>Height (lunanits)</th><th>Height (meters)</th></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Mount Yurch </td><td align="center">11.84</td><td align="center">375.28</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Mount Rotyg </td><td align="center">9.32</td><td align="center">295.28</td></tr>
| |
| − | <tr><td>Kluvat Peak </td><td align="center">7.07</td><td align="center">223.97</td></tr>
| |
| − | </table>
| |
Latest revision as of 15:08, 3 October 2005
Note: The inline link and mention of orthogonality has been removed due to recent updates per my timestamp. Regardless of today's world, orthogonality was still a valid satisfaction of the rules at the time the entry was written, so we've not modified the Citations line. --Morbus Iff 19:03, 25 May 2005 (EDT)
