2006-09-17 15:26:21 · 7 answers · asked by I-C-U 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Earth Sciences & Geology
probably.I know the Himalayas grow a little bit each year,and if it continued at this rate uniformly,Mount Everest would be 80,000 feet tall in 40 million years.However, weathering,rock slides,and earthquakes topple mountains long before they reach these heights.So,based on that information,I would guess that somewhere around 29,500 or 30,00 feet(465-965 feet taller than mount Everest)is the maximum height for a mountain.
2006-09-17 15:41:18 · answer #1 · answered by That one guy 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
Yes, after growing for a while (say, 100 million years) the continental crust reaches equilibrium by developing deeper and deeper roots. The Himalaya Mountains are believed to be the highest any mountains can form on planet Earth. Contrary to what Nick S said, the highest mountain in the world is not Mount Mc Kinley, it is the Island of Hawaii, almost 14,000 feet above sea level sitting on the abyssal plain 18,000 feet below sea level. This mountain stands almost 32,000 feet from base to peak and is the largest mountain in total cubic rock content.
2006-09-19 05:29:05 · answer #2 · answered by Amphibolite 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes. There are limitations imposed by the isostacy, which is the gravitational equilibrium between the Earth's lithosphere and asthenosphere. So, it is not only the erosion rate that can degrade a mountain, but also the isostacy. The earth lithosphere is floating on a very viscous asthenospheric mantle. All mountains have deep roots, when there is erosion, the isostacy will try to lift up the mountain, when there is mountain building, the isostacy will sink the mountain until reaching equilibrium. Of course mountain building is produced by plate tectonics, but isostacy is what limit the size of our mountain.
In Mars, there is no isostacy and the mountains like the Olympus volcano can grow and grow, and are bigger than the ones on earth.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isostacy
2006-09-18 06:46:14 · answer #3 · answered by Scientist13905 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
What you have to remember is that Everest is not the highest mountain based on size of the mountain pyramid itself. When you see pictures of Everest, you are looking at it from about 17,000 feet upwards, as it sits atop the Nepal/Tibet plateau. The actual mountain pyramid doesn't start til about 20,000 feet +, when Everest separates itself from the adjoining peaks. Therefore you probably have a mountain stack that is less than 10,000 feet high, supportted on a 20,000 feet base.
The biggest mountain for sheer stand-alone size is Mt Mckinley in Alaska, which thrusts about 16,000 feet above its base.
So, if you had a mountain like McKinley having the high base that Everest enjoys, the mountain would exceed 36,000 feet in height.
2006-09-17 16:23:10 · answer #4 · answered by nick s 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Mountain building is a product of plate collisions and interactions. Tectonic Plates are able to move around due to a layer beneath the plates called the asthenosphere which is convected by heat from earth's core. Lets say convection speeds up, plates collide faster and build higher mountains that anything we see today, because the rapid growth leads to minimal erosion.........
2006-09-17 20:44:40 · answer #5 · answered by einstien c 1 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Ain't no mountain high enough. God has no limitations!
2006-09-17 18:11:31 · answer #6 · answered by Cali Girl 5 · 0⤊ 2⤋
hey
aren't mountains and islands formed from earth eruptions? volcano's- the heights and possibilities ?
2006-09-17 18:01:16 · answer #7 · answered by billbowlerski 3 · 0⤊ 2⤋