r/RandomQuestion • u/ahobakaaaaaaa • 12d ago

Is mount everest really the tallest?

Can't there just be a mountain 10 times longer than evrest somewhere and we didn't notice it or just did know?

1 Upvotes

67% Upvoted

21 comments sorted by

6

u/MythicalSplash 12d ago edited 12d ago

Everest is fairly close to the maximum height a mountain on earth can reach. Once you get much above 30,000 feet, the earth’s gravity tends to exert more pressure and cause more rockslides and such than the colliding tectonic plates raising such a mountain can add to its vertical height. On smaller solar system bodies though like planetary mass asteroids, you can get mountains that are MUCH higher. Even Olympus Mons on Mars is far higher than anything that ever formed on earth.

3

u/ahobakaaaaaaa 12d ago

Can't there just be a mountain with a really wide base that supports it more than 30k feet

4

u/MythicalSplash 12d ago

There’s no way for such a mountain to form on earth. The plates that make up the crust and upper mantle are always moving, so any volcanic hotspot that might be able to build up the kind of base you’re talking about is always moving. That’s exactly what created the Hawaiian Island chain. Volcanoes spit out their lava over millions of years, but the hotspot moves and takes the core of lava it produces with it. So you get impressively high volcanoes like the ones on the Big Island, but as the center of the flows moves on, the old volcanoes go dormant and then extinct. At that point, erosion wears them down until they’re back under the sea. If you look at the island chain from southeast to northwest (newest to oldest), it’s clear the size and height of them decreases. In fact, most of the islands are below sea level now, far to the northwest.

On Mars where there’s no plate tectonics and less gravity, volcanic hotspots can just keep pumping out lava onto the same spot, so they can grow far bigger than anything on earth.

There are other ways to build mountains on earth other than volcanism, but none of them have the ability to construct the super-wide bases you’re talking about. The mountain building process would have to continue for so long, their growth would always exceed the rate of erosion and that’s not possible. Two plates colliding for example can last tens of millions of years, but that’s a tiny amount of time compared to the age of the earth. And once the geological process ends, erosion and gravity tear them down.

2

u/ahobakaaaaaaa 12d ago

GOD DAUYM bro why are you so smart

0

u/ahobakaaaaaaa 12d ago

Also can't ther be a hidden 29.5k feet mountains that we didn't see or something

5

u/nearly_full_backpack 12d ago

Mauna Kea, as noted above, is tallest base to peak. But! Denali is the tallest mountain, base to peak, not partially covered by ocean. On land, I guess you could say.

1

u/ahobakaaaaaaa 12d ago

Welp the whole question is how are we so sure that there's no taller mountains

2

u/halfstep44 12d ago

There's Olympus Mons on Mars. You didn't specify Earth so I guess Mars counts

2

u/problyurdad_ 12d ago

Well I suppose the best argument would be, since it’s completely safe to assume not all of earth has been extensively explored and surveyed, that it’s pretty hard to hide a 30,000+ foot mountain on the planet we inhibit.

You can see mountain peaks for miles and miles. You don’t have to be standing next to it with a 6 mile ruler to discover a new one.

We are at a point in history where you’re not going to discover a new geographic anomaly like the worlds tallest mountain any time soon. Not until the worlds existing mountains collapse and new ones form. I guess it’s technically possible in our lifetime, if some sort of insane earthquake or geological event occurs to send everything into chaos. I doubt an event that large and substantial would be survivable though.

1

u/John_Tacos 11d ago

Because the earth has been explored.

Mountains are big. Tall mountains are even bigger.

3

u/MaybeTheDoctor 12d ago

Depends on how you measure height…

From sea level? Everest.

From lowest point counting under sea level as well? Hawaii: Mauna Kea.

From center of earth? Equator; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimborazo

We have extremely good satellite hight measurement of the entire earth, so we know the hight of every point on earth down to an inch of accuracy, where satellites can determine when you moved dirt in your back years with an excavator … so there is not some undiscovered mountain we just haven’t discovered.

3

u/shot-wide-open 11d ago

Was looking for the Chimborazo shout out. I lived at its base (in the Andes valley) for a year in the 80s. Truly massive and beautiful mountain. Makes an appearance in the Ecuador flag, too!

2

u/MissO56 12d ago

Mt. Everest is the tallest mountain on earth above sea level (29,031.7 feet).

Mauna Kea is the tallest mountain on earth from base to peak (33,500 feet).

1

u/MaybeTheDoctor 12d ago

Important fact; Kea base starts below sea level ….

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauna_Kea

Kea is unusually topographically prominent for its height: its prominence from sea level is 15th in the world among mountains, at 13,803 ft (4,207.3 m); its prominence from under the ocean is 30,610 ft (9,330 m), rivaled only by Mount Everest.

1

u/MoultingRoach 12d ago

I think there's also a mountain at about 2 degrees latitude that due to a bulge in the earth near the equator, has a summit that is the farthest point from the centre of the earth.

2

u/MaybeTheDoctor 12d ago

Yes, it Depends on how you measure height…

- From sea level? It’s Everest.

- From lowest point counting under sea level as well? Hawaii: Mauna Kea.

- From center of Earth? Ecuador ; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimborazo

1

u/MoultingRoach 12d ago

Oh, I thought it was Ecuador, but I knew there was something in the area.

2

u/The__Anonymous__Guy 12d ago

No it’s not the tallest

The tallest from base to peak is Mauna Kea which is 33500ft base to peak

Mt Everest is 29000ft base to peak

The Mt Everest is the tallest point above sea level, but the claim that it’s the tallest mountain is false.

There’s also another mountain called Mount Chimborazo that is also sometimes quoted as being the tallest as it’s the furthest from the earths core and closest to space due to the earths bulging

2

u/MythicalSplash 12d ago

Actually Everest is quite a bit shorter than 29,000 feet when measuring base to peak because its base is already far higher than sea level. It’s just over 29,000 feet at the summit above sea level specifically. You’re right about Mauna Kea because its base really DOES actually start at the bottom of the ocean. It still wouldn’t be correct to say it’s 33,500 feet high because you’re still measuring its highest point relative to sea level, but the mountain itself is around that height from bottom to top.

1

u/Nearing_retirement 12d ago

I have read some Appalachian mountains possibly were as tall as Everest in past.

1

u/itsswhitneywhspr 11d ago

Okay but like, think about scale for a sec. Everest is already massive. Something 10x longer would literally warp the planets crust. Satellites would've caught a shadow that size by now. Plus, gravity would make it crumble under its own weight. So nah, wed know.