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.
Author
Topic: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook?? (Read 139262 times)