13

Factors determining the maximum possible height of mountains include the rate of uplift versus the rate of erosion[a] and rock strength. Rock strength is controlled by the type and internal structure of the rock in question. There is some evidence that once mountains extend above the snow line, glacial and periglacial erosion have a stronger control than ...


6

The simple answer is 'crustal thickness'. The two crustal plates of India and Eurasia are very different in character. The Indian plate is thin, the Eurasian plate is much thicker and more rigid. Both plates are so buoyant with respect to the underlying mantle that neither can subduct in the normal sense. But India is moving so fast that something has to ...


6

Found a article that used a simple analytical modelling to determine how high a mountain can be. Reference Based on simple physics, tallest a mountain will be on earth is ~10 km. This is based on: Simple cone shape for the mountain. Vol ≈ $r^2 h$ Based on weight of the of the mountain: Weight W≈ $\rho g r^2 h$ Stress σ the mountain exerts on the ground ...


4

The glacial buzzsaw hypothesis (summary; sample paper) is that mountains can't get much higher than the elevation at which glaciers form cirques. The upper walls of the cirques are steep and erode easily, which planes off the peaks above them, shortening the mountains. The evidence is, to summarize, that they don't get much higher than the cirques. Cirques ...


3

Once the sediments (mainly silt and sand) have been deposited as layers in an ocean, when the sea level was much higher. Thus, each layer is very homogeneous in its texture, hardness and stability against weathering and erosion. Therefore vertical forces of erosion have a uniform effect on the entire surface and the ridge remains flat when there is no ...


3

Anywhere on the planet where there is plate convergence probably has rising mountains, even in the ocean where there is back-arc volcanism, although the mountain building may be out of sight from the sea floor. So that includes all of the Andes, much of the European Alps, New Guinea and Indonesia. But there is not much happening in Africa or Australia.


2

The type of convergent boundaries is not the only factor. From the current configuration of the world one could be tempted to say that Continental-Continental collisions would form the tallest mountains. And they are indeed the most dramatic tectonic collisions and they formed the Himalayas, that are almost 2,000 m taller than any other mountain on Earth. ...


2

If you look a wider view from above and a bit to the west, you will notice Massanutten is not that straight nor is it unique most of the surrounding mountains are the same, especially to west. Basically you camera is pointed in exactly the wrong direction to see the other mountains. on a geologic map it becomes even more obvious. A false color which ...


2

There were certainly river mouths or estuaries in the rivers that drained off the proto-Himalayas into the last retreating stages of the Neo-Tethys Ocean. Such rivers comprised dozens of small rivers and the westward-flowing Proto-Ganges itself, which deposited the Siwalik formation which now forms the Lesser Himalayas. That is, the southernmost 'soft' 'salt ...


2

(this is consciously the start of the answer - my regional geology books -cf. above comment, are packed away due to a house move). The rolling hills are very distinctive of the English Jurassic & Cretaceous. Relatively low dipping rocks - long wavelength folds. The ridges are due to rocks that are more resistant to erosion. For example, the English ...


1

My guess is streams fed by mountains that have been tectonically compressed and is undergoing some rotation. Near Italy are 3 tectonic boundary. Convergent, transform, and divergent. Due to the plate motion of the Eurasian plate, to the African plate, and the Arabian plate, it is causing compression and what I can describe as some rotation the land. It ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible