The seventh summit is on Australia. It is defined as a continent, whereas Carstensz is located on what is clearly an island. This other mountin that is on Heard island is clearly on an "island".
To Quote:
"Unfortunately, there really isn't a good definition of a continent. The Oxford English Dictionary gives a pretty standard definition: "One of the main continuous bodies of land on the earth's surface." Even geology and geography books aren't much more precise. A definition this vague means that the number of continents will vary depending on what criteria you consider.
There are two main ideas that go into what makes a continent. The first is the "large continuous land mass" idea, and the second deals with continental plates. If you look at continuous land masses, then Europe and Asia should definitely be a single continent. But what exactly does "continuous" mean in regard to continents? Africa is definitely connected to Asia, but people usually think of it as being a separate continent. The same goes for North and South America. If you're thinking that any connection is enough to make two land masses continuous, then there are four continents: Antarctica, North and South America, Australia, and Europe/Asia/Africa. Size is also an issue. There's no strict lower limit to how big a piece of land has to be to be a continent, but Greenland, for example, is considered an island, not a continent.
Continental plates may seem to be a good criterion for dividing up continents, as they are fairly separate and unambiguous. Unfortunately, there are lots of them, and they divide up land masses in some pretty odd ways. Here is a good map of the continental plates. As you can see, India would be a separate continent, as would Asia Minor and Central America. One could decide that they are too small to be continents on their own. Making things more confusing, a good chunk of western Siberia would be included with North America!
To summarize, the definition of continent is vague enough that what is and is not considered to be a continent is largely determined by history and custom. It ends up being a mix of continuous land masses, continental plates, and size, so whether there are five or seven continents just depends on how you want to divide up the Earth. As an aside, note that the division between Europe and Asia can't be justified by either the continuous land mass or the continental plates idea; it's just a cultural consensus."
Quote from: Torsten Bernhardt, Staff, Biodiversity, Redpath Museum, McGill University
So, It is really a matter of social consensus and custom as to the definition of a continent.
If one is to start deciding what plate the moutain is on to satisfy this question, then Denali is suspect. It is not a part of the North American continent. It is an accreation that has bound itself to the NA land mass for a time. Elbrus is just a
One has to look at the history of where this whole issue came from. Rienhold Messner, who is the greatest mountaineer of all time and one of my heros, was the one who brought this about. He felt that Kosiusko was not a real challenge ansd looked for another mountain that was harder, and higher. So, he climber Carstensz and then proclamed it the true seventh summit. With his most respectable weight behind the claim, now here we are.
Island versus land mass. Not much to really argue about, in my opinion.
Author
Topic: What is the 7th summit: is it Carstensz, Kosciuszko or Mt Cook?? (Read 170294 times)