Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!esosun!net1!sdcsvax!nosc!humu!uhmanoa!bob From: bob@uhmanoa.UUCP (Bob Cunningham) Newsgroups: sci.misc Subject: Re: max. mountain height; was Re: alternative to plate tectonics Message-ID: <153@uhmanoa.UUCP> Date: Tue, 16-Dec-86 13:25:32 EST Article-I.D.: uhmanoa.153 Posted: Tue Dec 16 13:25:32 1986 Date-Received: Wed, 17-Dec-86 23:50:55 EST References: <531@weitek.UUCP> <1272@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <2207@iuvax.UUCP> Organization: Hawaii Institute of Geophysics Lines: 22 Keywords: plate tectonics, continental drift > There seems to be a limit to the height of the mountains... The principle is correct, but the details get a little complicated... Under pressure and high temperatures, most minerals undergo phase changes ---effectively becoming different minerals---that increase their ability to withstand pressure and temperature. Although obviously rare, carbon-to-diamond is one almost everybody knows about. Less well known are minerals like perovskite that the various high-pressure labs around the world have only recently been able to produce by duplicating the extreme pressures and temperatures deep in the earth. That Mt. Everest isn't near the theoretical limits of height for a mountain should be obvious. There are other mountains that---from their base to peak---are higher (and there are mountain peaks further from the earth's center as well). Everest is just the mountain with the most elevation above the earth's geoid (or, if you prefer a less precise term: above sea level). -- Bob Cunningham bob@hig.hawaii.edu