Mt. Everest Only 29,017 Feet

[qam1]

BEIJING - The world's highest mountain, Mount Everest, is 12 feet shorter than previously thought, Chinese scientists who measured the peak earlier this year said Sunday.

Story

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20051009/ap_on_sc/china_measuring_everest_2

Whoo-ho. Marcy will now overtake it in only 2,405,150 years instead of 2,406,369
:
:

[Judgeh]

Piece of cake. Anybody for a day hike in Nepal?

[adkdremn]

I always thought that it wasn't quite that high of a mountain. :drink:

[redhawk]

BEIJING - The world's highest mountain, Mount Everest, is 12 feet shorter than previously thought, Chinese scientists who measured the peak earlier this year said Sunday.

Story

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20051009/ap_on_sc/china_measuring_everest_2

Whoo-ho. Marcy will now overtake it in only 2,405,177 years instead of 2,406,396
:
:

Were those Chinese miles or Meters?

I've always thought that the way they measure the height of mountains should be changed anyway, at least from the standpoint of climmbing. I think that the height should be measured from the base to the top for climbing (hiking) purposes. If that were the case, I think that you would find that mountains like Snowy and others are actually higher from their base then some of the "46".

Actually there is a lot of debate on that subject, some scientific people say that the mountains height should be measured from the earths center to the peak to get a true comparison of the height of mountains and ranges.


Of course where the heightabove sea level really comes into play is with the thinness of the air.

[qam1]

I've always thought that the way they measure the height of mountains should be changed anyway, at least from the standpoint of climmbing. I think that the height should be measured from the base to the top for climbing (hiking) purposes. If that were the case, I think that you would find that mountains like Snowy and others are actually higher from their base then some of the "46".

But it doesn't alway help because Giant for instance has about a 1000' vertical rise difference between the Rt. 9 and Rt. 73 sides. So which do you use?

If you use the lowest point Giant would then be the highest peak in the Adirondacks at 4,050 feet (from a point in New Russia - not by the trail).

Actually there is a lot of debate on that subject, some scientific people say that the mountains height should be measured from the earths center to the peak to get a true comparison of the height of mountains and ranges.

Using that way of measuring Mt. Marcy is 20,896,890 Feet High!!!!!!

Though due to the Earth's bulge at the equator, if you are sitting on a beach at the equator by this way of measuring you will be 28,738 feet higher than Marcy.

[redhawk]

Using that way of measuring Mt. Marcy is 20,896,890 Feet High!!!!!!

Though due to the Earth's bulge at the equator, if you are sitting on a beach at the equator by this way of measuring you will be 28,738 feet higher than Marcy.

Tell that to the cartographers or mathematicians. it's their argument, not mine...