Difference between revisions of "User talk:Azivegu"

Latest revision as of 13:22, 21 June 2013

values of orbits

You have added information about orbits to a fair few of the planets and moons, I was wondering where you are getting these values? Could you perhaps make a page along the lines of Tutorial:Calculating Geosynchronous Orbits. or are you just pulling these values from other sources? Thecoshman (talk) 12:11, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

Signing posts

When you are using talk pages, don't forget to sign your posts by typing ~~~~ so that people know you are you. Thecoshman (talk) 07:57, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• whoops, my bad xD --Azivegu (talk) 12:47, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Adding Dutch

Hey, I would be willing to start building up the Dutch language section of this wiki, but i am not sure how to add it. Could you explain it for me? --Azivegu (talk) 12:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

• Hi, I've made some Russian translation. If you want to make translation to some page, just add suffix with language (like /ru for Rusain pages, example: http://kspwiki.nexisonline.net/wiki/Parts for English version and http://kspwiki.nexisonline.net/wiki/Parts/ru for Russian one. I am not sure, but for Dutch it is /de) in link. And add string {{Languages}} somewhere in original (if it was not there) and translated page (I add it in the end of page). For some data, as characteristics of parts I use form switch to make this data be able to use in different language pages. I tried to explain how it works in Russian here User_talk:Alex_Phenom, too lazy to explain in English. Try to translate in google, it should translates not bad.

Begin your translation from Parts, it supports multi language fully, you should just add Dutch words, not needed to make switch forms. Hope my English is not so bad and you'll understand that) --Varden (talk) 16:37, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

WTF!?

Okay, my page seems to be spazzing out. Does anybody know how to fix it?

Main Page language box

Hi, I noticed how you added a newline to the language box on the Main Page. This is no problem when using small windows or screens, but on larger ones it just adds a lot of blank space to the sides and makes the box longer. Also the box automatically adjusts depending on the width of your window and creates a new line if necessary, so this doesn't have to be done manually. I've undone the edit for now, but if there's any advantage that I didn't notice, just tell me. --dgelessus ^{(talk · logs)} 09:14, 18 June 2013 (CDT)

• Hey, I guess if it does it automatically, then it is a bit of overkill. The Reason I did it was because it was stretched out, but had a lot of empty spaces on top and bottom. From a website I previously worked on, I figured out that people prefer it if links are more compact (is easier to oversee) then if it is stretched out. It really has to do with the 'strain' and ergonomic on the eyes, but it is a bit of nit picking I will admit. --Azivegu (talk) 14:42, 18 June 2013 (CDT)

The languages on the left sidebar list them vertically. And all boxes on the main pages have such a large whitespace. — xZise [talk] 15:20, 18 June 2013 (CDT)

Age of craters on Kerbin?

Hello, how did you define the craters' ages on Kerbin (your edit)? — xZise [talk] 10:20, 20 June 2013 (CDT)

By his description I would draw the conclusion presumed the more eroded crater was older, and the more distinct one was younger. That would be a valid presumption, and I would draw the same conclusion that the better defined crater is younger. I, however, cannot be sure they are meteor craters. The reason being, super-volcanoes create a nearly identical structure. (There are three such craters that I know of on earth. The ring of fire in southern Egypt, Yellowstone in the US, and one in the northern Andes of South America that I don't remember the name of that last one.)--Ruedii (talk) 21:49, 20 June 2013 (CDT)

• • Hey guys, This might get a bit complicated, because I might start using terminology (comes from studying geology.) But there are two craters/calderas(the correct term for a collapsed roof of a volcano.)

I'll just presume that as of this moment, that they could be both. We see two ring like structures (for high res map, see here.) It has no caldera structure. Calderas namely have steep slopes, or are surrounded by cliffs on multiple sides. Also, because super volcano (the only thing that could get into that size) hot-spots have fixed positions, they leave a trail, which is not observable. Also, eruptions that erode more then deposit, are usually of very high silica (>65%) which makes it very viscous. That would mean that for a 100 km caldera, you would need 1000's of cubic km of magma. And when I say a lot, I mean picture a hell of a lot of lava, times that by 100, and you aren't even near. The largest Yellowstone was 2.4e3km3. The largest known lava flow was 8.6e3km3, but as I said, it was a flow, not an eruption. It literally just spilled over. If we look at the one I presume to be older, we see to the north-east a mountain range, and it doesn't take to much imagination to see it is going in the direction towards the hill-range (don't know if they are mountains, have to still send a probe to see how high they are.) This lets us presume that they belong together to form the same range. Volcanoes (even super volcanoes or super duper volcanoes (as Neil deGrasse Tyson once put it)) will always follow the path of least resistance. Super Volcanoes don't form shields or anything in that area. And if it was under a mountain range, big chance that it'll just wait until the plate moves on.

Now lets take a look at the older of the two craters. We see a portion of a mountain range is missing, a rebound peak in the center and two sets of rings surrounding it (one close to the rebound peak, the other you know where it is.) What we also see is 'pot marks' that could have been formed when material came back down after the impact, but I have to check that out before I'll use that as evidence. These are signs of an impact event. Now why is it older? Take a look at the uplift region to the North, North-West, West and South-East. You'll see low hills, but they have a width of the hills that surround the other impact site. After having visited them , they are very flat. I would conclude that they are eroded (although weather on Kerbin still has yet to be discovered xD.) The case would also be true for the mountains to the North East, but they are much higher.

For the effects of impacts on mountain ranges, I suggest you see this picture at wikipedia. Look in particular at the region to the south of Galle crater.

The other crater has the same features, The reason why the portion that is in see is lower in height, is due to increased erosion and possibly that it was under sea level when it was hit. But the rest is relatively steeper and more clearly defined, which would mean it was less eroded.

I hope I cleared some stuff up. Let me know if you have some questions! --Azivegu (talk) 01:56, 21 June 2013 (CDT)

Wow very detailed information and it sounds logical for me to assume those are impacts and not volcanoes. I guessed something like the erosion could help dating those. (And I took the liberty to indent your text) — xZise [talk] 04:05, 21 June 2013 (CDT)

Your welcome. And thanks!!! I was so proud of myself that I at least remembered my signature this time, good thing I didn't get everything right, that would have been awkward xD but let me know if you have anymore questions. Im doing some follow ups on the cratering history on all the planets and moons, but it is pretty boring work, so it takes a while. --Azivegu (talk) 08:22, 21 June 2013 (CDT)