|
|
| 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)
| |
| | | | |
| − | 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">118.4</td><td align="center">3,752.8</td></tr>
| |
| − | <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">70.7</td><td align="center">2,239.7</td></tr>
| |
| − | </table>
| |
| − |
| |
| − | 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. --[[User:DrAckroyd|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 14:01, 28 Feb 2005 (EST)
| |
| − |
| |
| − | I'm fine with lunaits. --[[User:Morbus Iff|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. --[[User:DrBacchus|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. --[[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. By comparison, the tallest mountain in Australia (the flattest country I can think of) is Mount Kosciusko at 2,228 meters. --[[User:DrAckroyd|Dr. H. L. Ackroyd]] 12:57, 8 May 2005 (EDT)
| |
