Is Mount Everest a "young" mountain or an old one? When I researched it, it said it is about 60 million years old. Is that old for a mountain or young?
2007-03-14 10:22:05 · 6 answers · asked by <3 2 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Geography
young - in general the taller the mountain the younger it is - the old ones are worn down and rounded off by erosion
did a quick search - Rockies and Himalayas are about 10-25 million years old --- the Appalachians and Urals are in the 200 million year range
and one last note - the mountain is the highest point in the world but in itself really isn't all that impressive - it sits on a plateau that is higher than most mountains are tall so it's actual height from base to top is less than many other mountains in the world - and it was not a volcano ever it was formed by an upthrust of the earth when two plates collided ( and was much taller 60 million years ago )
2007-03-14 10:25:46 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 0⤋
The Himalaya are a relatively young range of mountains. By comparison, the Appalachian mountains on the east coast of the United States are a very old range of mountains. Geologists estimate that during their prime, there were several peaks along the Appalachians which were over 40,000 feet tall.
2007-03-14 21:50:27 · answer #2 · answered by frankmoore 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Mt Everest is the highest peak of the Himalayas which are the youngest fold mountain range of the world.So it is definitely a young mountain.
2007-03-15 10:48:57 · answer #3 · answered by Sarmila 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
i think it is is old because how a mountain gets bigger is that it is (of was) a volcano that's lave cooled and added maybe and inch. now volcanoes don't erupt often so it takes a long time to grow to be the biggest mountain in the world.
2007-03-14 17:28:09 · answer #4 · answered by Matt 2 · 0⤊ 2⤋
i guess thts a fairly young mountain
2007-03-14 18:53:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
i think it's very old
2007-03-14 17:25:25 · answer #6 · answered by vtownlauren 2 · 0⤊ 3⤋