Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cuae2!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!cdaf From: cdaf@iuvax.UUCP Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: max. mountain height; was Re: alternative to plate tectonics Message-ID: <2207@iuvax.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Dec-86 18:50:34 EST Article-I.D.: iuvax.2207 Posted: Fri Dec 12 18:50:34 1986 Date-Received: Mon, 15-Dec-86 20:50:31 EST References: <531@weitek.UUCP> <1272@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <1273@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <648@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> Reply-To: cdaf@iuvax.UUCP (Charles Daffinger) Organization: Indiana University, Bloomington Lines: 24 Keywords: plate tectonics, continental drift In article <648@bath63.ux63.bath.ac.uk> ma_jpb@ux63.bath.ac.uk (Bennett) writes: >[...] > Given we can work out the kinetic >energy of the plate, we can calculate the height of the mountains this would >raise if converted to potential energy with 100% efficiency. There seems to be a limit to the height of the mountains. If I remember correctly from freshman physics, Everest is close to the theoretical height of a mountain. This is because the intense pressure sustained by the rock supporting the mountain has brought it to nearly melting temperatures. Obviously this is only applicable to the rock deep inside the base region of the mountain, upon which most of the stress falls. I'm lead to wonder whether a molten inner base of a mountain (due to stress) would cause the mountain to collapse, or if the molten portion could be successfully contained by the less-strained base of the mountain? -charles -- All that we may see or seem | Snail : Box 1662 Bloomington, In. 47402-1662 Is but a dream within a dream | ATT : (812) 339-7354 - [I don't know] | USEnet: cdaf@iuvax.csnet | iuvax!cdaf (can anyone help me?) | BITNET: BCHC901@INDYCMS