Mountain Shape

[petrushkagoogol]

The more or less accepted shape of a mountain is an almost equilateral triangle, which is the norm ?

 

Is this a stable gravitational equilibrium or are more shapes permitted by gravity ? 

[Turtle]

The more or less accepted shape of a mountain is an almost equilateral triangle, which is the norm ?

 

Is this a stable gravitational equilibrium or are more shapes permitted by gravity ? 

Nonsense. The aspect ratio of a mountain is determined by the material composing it, the type of mountain, i.e. uplift or volcanic, and the age. Mountain shapes range from low wide hills to narrow nearly vertical crags. Obviously gravity plays its roll. (Pun intended.)

[freeztar]

I was thinking about this the other day. In this age of alternative facts, it forces people to speak in absolutes.

 

My thoughts on this matter started after I read a lively debate on Pluto being a planet, or not. Mountains are the same. It just depends on perception at this point, but we could easily set standards. As Turtle described, there are a lot of factors to consider. So rather than an easy answer, you would have to consult a taxonomic field guide to know for sure that what you are looking at is a defacto mountain (and not just a silly looking hill).

 

I propose a few standards:

 

1. Height - What is it's height relative to sea level? What is it's heigh relative to the surrounding area?

2. Mountain chains - Mountains do not usually appear out of nowhere solitarily. They are usually connected to a seismic event. In those cases, there is usually a long chain of mountains. Mountains in these areas should be considered mountains by association.

3. Sudden elevation - hills are generally thought of as low, rolling bumps in the landscape. You'd walk to the top of one in your finest suit without breaking a sweat. Mountains, on the other hand, require the right footwear and a good heart. The climb is steeper. The elevation changes more rapidly with a mountain. This can easily be quantified. All the good hiking guides will tell you the change of elevation over distance. Some of them even come with graphs. So if we call x distance and y elevation, we can come up with an equation that satisfies the mountain test. But then we get into methodology and it gets really messy here. Which side of the "mountain" are you measuring? Where does the measuring tape begin and end? Messy...

 

So really, it doesn't matter that much. You say potato and I say pootawto.

[Speedjohn]

The force of wind and rain wears down and breaks apart the rock that makes up the mountain. As the mountain crumbles, gravity shapes it into a rough cone: the mountain falls away radially around the peak. The "triangle" image of a mountain is because looking at a cone from the side looks like a triangle.Most of the mountains get their conical shape from the down-cutting action of the rivers.

[sanctus]

Freez, I was sure that there was a scientific definition already, but seems I was wrong:

https://www.geolounge.com/mountain/

[petrushkagoogol]

The force of wind and rain wears down and breaks apart the rock that makes up the mountain. As the mountain crumbles, gravity shapes it into a rough cone: the mountain falls away radially around the peak. The "triangle" image of a mountain is because looking at a cone from the side looks like a triangle.Most of the mountains get their conical shape from the down-cutting action of the rivers.

 

I think the triangular shape of a mountain stems from decreasing surface area as we move upwards, rising gradually as we move upwards, with it culminating at a peak, which is a gravitationally stable structure in it's entirety......