7summits forum!

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Down

Author Topic: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook??  (Read 131938 times)

Thea-Mari

  • Guest

Howdy
Right, it is Carstensz for me, I suppose everyone have to make up his/her own mind!  But to go climb Kosciuszko would be to take the easy way out!  >:D
Logged

Ron

  • Mountaineer
  • *****
  • Altitude: -1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 354
  • Adapt,improvise and overcome!

Hehehe.......agree.....but i think if your a real climber Carstensz is pretty easy too.
The political situation is the biggets challange there. ;D
Logged

tottelott

  • Guest

Just climb Everest, Acongaua and Vinson! ;D Since the other summits can be disscussed and argued about beeing a continent or not its a waste of time :lol)
Logged

trunl

  • Guest

talk about taking the easy way out!  :eek) :eek)

trunl
Logged

Juz

  • Guest

7summits wrote:
----------
"One of them is the world part of Australia, but this 'part' also includes new zealand, tasmania and PNG. Thanks to the dutch and Indonesians, the line was drawn there, although ofcourse all papuas are ethnically the same with the Aboriginals as the countries used to be one/connected until a very short period ago as you know."
----------


A continent is easy to define: your original Brittanica defintion summed it up neatly. Then you proceeded to muddy the waters by talking about continental shelves & Ice Ages. Quite simply, the "here & now" definition of a continent is as per the EB.

BTW, what the hell is a "world part"? I have never heard this phrase used before... continents, yes; regions, yes; hemispheres, yes... world parts, never. I think that your spurious definition of continents (which you have then morphed into "world parts") is almost as erroneous as your geography of the Australasian region.

To examine the errors in your above statement (and some other posts of yours in this thread):
  • Australia is the name of a country and also a continent.
  • Tasmania is part of Australia (the country) but not part of Australia (the continent)
  • PNG is neither part of Australia (the country) nor Australia (the continent). It is on an island and is fully politically independent.
  • Papuans and Australian Aborigines are NOT ethnically the same. There are some indigenous Australians called "Torres Strait Islanders" who are ethnically similar to people from PNG, but Torres Strait Islanders and Australian Aborigines are two very different ethnic groups, with different racial characteristics as well as with different cultures and ways of life.
  • The region of Australia and its neighbouring countries (i.e. PNG, NZ, South Pacific island nations) can be called either "Australasia" or "Oceania", but I have lived in Australia for 35 years and have never heard Australasia referred to the "Australian world part".(Note that - despite the confusing name - the area covered by "Australasia" does not include any parts of Asia.)
Logged

Ron

  • Mountaineer
  • *****
  • Altitude: -1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 354
  • Adapt,improvise and overcome!

translated from Dutch a continent is the same as world part  :_)
Logged

sylvester cletus ukpong

  • Guest

:_[i want to learn more about the 7 countinent.
 
interesting things that is happening in the countinent.
                                                       
                                                             thanks.
Logged

trunl

  • Guest

could you explain more?


trunl
Logged

Alex

  • Guest

It cant be Cook. If you include New Zealand you should include New Guinea too.


Unfortunatly Kosciuszko is not really (Fine!.... it is BORING) 7 summit material in my mind. I split the world into 7 regions. The heck with continents! If we choose to go strictly with landmasses for 7 summits than mountians like Carstensz get left out. Lets at least agree that if you make the world into 7 regions- NA, SA, Europe, Africa, Asia, Antartica and Oceania (Indonisia included) that Carstensz is the 7th summit. Those regions are the boundries my 7 summits.
Logged

Tasty

  • Guest

The problem is Alex that Indonesia is geologically split between oceania and asia...More over it is politically part of Asia...as result I would have to disagree with you that Indonesia is part of oceania...whether or not Cartenz is the 7th summit or not is up for debate...
Logged

trunl

  • Guest

ok we got south pole (a land mass, not north pole, because it is just ice), n. america and s. america (split by the panama canal) eurasia (one mass), australia (one mass), greenland (not usually thought of as a continent, but if australia is big enough, then why not greenland), and last, the oceania (includes all ocean area, and all land masses not mentioned above).



trunl
Logged

Alex

  • Guest

i dont know about greenland. on normal mapprojections it looks sizeable but it really is prettly small. I really dont think "continents" or "landmasses" are really exceptable ways to define the 7 summits. They are contriversial. Is the U.K. part of Europe? Is Madagascar part of Africa? Is Long Island NY part of the North American continent/landmass? Based on the continents I think we can make the world into regions (NA, SA, Europe, Asia, Africa, Antartica, and Oceania) and take the highest mountains from those to make the 7 summits. If the worlds highest mountain was in Hawaii (which it is from base to summit) how could it be denied as part of the 7 Summits?


P.S. Also: would the highest mountain on greenland be Mt. Forel?
Logged

MikeW

  • Climber
  • ****
  • Altitude: 13
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 167
  • To be is to climb!

Hey Guys!

Most people define a continent based on their tectonic plate. Greenland is part of the same tectonic plate as North America even if it's part of Denmark. The same is true with the island of Irian Jaya (Cartensz Pyramid is on that island), it is part of the same tectonic plate as Australia, New Zealand, the islands of Fiji. etc... even if Indonesia is part of Asia politically.

Technically speaking, North America and South America are part of the same tectonic plate (the Panama Canal is man made ::)), as Europe and Asia but they separate the Americas and Europe and Asia. It's fine with me.

So if you follow this logic of the tectonic plate, than Cartensz is the obvious choice for the highest peak in Oceania, but since it's closed to the general public, than make Kosciuszko the 7th summit for now.  ;D  ;) ;D

MikeW
Logged

Andreas

  • Scrambler
  • ***
  • Altitude: -3
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 51

P.S. Also: would the highest mountain on greenland be Mt. Forel?

To my knowledge Mt. Forel is 3360m, and the only mountain to exceed that height in Greenland is Gunnbjörns fjeld, Hvitserk, of 3700m. 

Logged
"I never drink water, that is the stuff that rusts pipes"

W. S. Fields

tasty

  • Guest

I think geologists are still arguing about which plate Irian Jaya is on...My understanding is that 50% think its on Asia's plate...the other 50% think its on the Australasian plate...

Logged

Alex

  • Guest

Hey Guys!

So if you follow this logic of the tectonic plate, than Cartensz is the obvious choice for the highest peak in Oceania, but since it's closed to the general public, than make Kosciuszko the 7th summit for now.  ;D  ;) ;D

MikeW

Not Kosciuszko, climb Cook!

Nonetheless however Carstensz's unavailibility shouldn't keep it from being the 7 summit though.
Logged

trunl

  • Guest

well, currently, the 7 summits are based purely on political boundries... but my proposal above is for physical boundries.



trunl
Logged

ThomasL

  • Armchair...
  • *
  • Altitude: -1
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2
  • Lazy newbie

Gosh ... Once for all:

The problem is:
1. Should each of the seven summits be in a Part of the World or in a continent?
2. If continent, what is a continent?
 
My answers:

1. Since all people seem to climb Elbrus as the highest peak of Europe, they have to consider Europe as a Part of the World, not a continent (by the classic definition of "a large continuous land mass") . And if you consider Europe as a Part of the World, the same should be done when deciding every other highest peak. Therefore, Mt. Wilhelm is the highest peak of the OCEANIAN Part of the World.

2. Following the argument above, if you decide to climb every CONTINENT'S (by the classic definition of "a large continuous land mass") highest peak, then Elbrus shouldn´t be climbed at all, since Europe and Asia together form the Euroasian continent, and the peaks climbed should be:
* MT. EVEREST        (Eurasian continent)
* MT. KOSCIUSZKO (Australian continent) alternative KARTENSZ PYRAMID if the island New     
                             Guinea is considered to be a part the Australian landmass.
* MT. VINSON        (Antartic continent)
* MT. ACONCAGUA (American continent, which consists of the Parts of the World South and   
                            North America; the Panama channel makes no difference. [And     
                            definitely not if Kartensz is the highest mountain of the Australian   
                            continent, since this must prove that shallow water between landmasses
                            doesn´t matter when deciding what a continent is in this case.])
* MT. KILIMANJARO (African continent)

(Add Mt Elbrus and Denali if Parts of the World is preferred.)

---

From a lot of sources you can read that there are seven continents instead of five, as I wrote above. If this is correct, then the definition is not that a continent is "a large continuous land mass". And in fact, nobody knows how this "new" continent should be defined. If it is the same as a Part of the World, then it is a piece of cake though.
« Last Edit: Apr 25 2005, 16:42 by ThomasL »
Logged

Roger

  • Adventurer
  • Scrambler
  • ***
  • Altitude: 0
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 78
  • Adventurer

Can someone outline when Carstensz overtook Kosciuszko as the "7 summit".  When did people start to choose Carstensz over Kosciuszko.  Did it happen to coincide with some clever marketing and offering of trips to this "new" 7 summit by a select group of expedition companies?  A new twist to their offerings?
Carstensz seems like a very expensive expedition and yet so close to me in Sydney. $10,000 US in some cases land only.  Seems a good earner especially if permits were available!  Please explain why this small mountain in these very poor regions costs so much to attain?
For me  climbing is more than just getting to the top it is enjoying the journey and culture of the particular region you choose to climb.  How many go to a climb and spend serious time experiencing the culture and people? I expect most go just to get to the top and then get back home asap.  How many write detailed journals of their experiences around the mountain and not just on it?
Roger
Logged

Anne

  • Guest
7 summits - Clever Marketing?!
« Reply #59 on: Jun 2 2005, 17:04 »

Hi All,
Have you ever read Dick Bass' book on midlife crisis climbing?  ;)
He climbed Kozzie because it was easier, this makes him the 'first' seven summiter ever (1985). However Pat Morrow, did the climbing thingy on Carstensz and is the first one on the official list (1986). 
Note: even everestnews.com has 2 lists, so as not to disappoint the people who achieved all but Cartsensz. Best to do all eight I guess.
NB I learned in school that there were seven, Oceania (AKA Australasia) being no 7. Comprising NG (that is Irain Jaya (the Indonesian ;province;) and PNG), NZ, Ozzie and the islands.
It is just a practical thing to choose Kozzie over Carstensz. The island is politically instable (so the Indonesians want us to believe), so sealed off for foreigners. And K is a lot easier than Cook.
By the way Roger, Elbrus is NOT in Ukraine, but in Russia proper!
Europe is all east of the URals and north of the Black Sea/Bosporus. Russia has been part of Europe for ages (at least since Peter the Great) and has been beating our sports teams ****s all the time in European Championships (bastards)


Logged
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5   Go Up
 

Page created in 0.109 seconds with 22 queries.