posted on Oct, 14 2008 @ 11:25 PM
There are actually 4 ways to form mountains,
By direct tectonic collision, the method by which most mountain ranges are formed, and in the case of the california coast range a chain of volcanoes
that ran into the north american plate.
Or by indirectly by collision, like the rocky mountains.
They were formed by the collision that formed the california coast range.
Or by a frighteningly large impact event, an event large enough for the earth to actually spall out on the opposite side of the planet.
The energy of the impact pushes all the way through the planet and almost breaks out the other side, pushing up a mountain range in an instant.
And for all those who will poo-poo such an idea, there is such a mountain range on mercury, it is exactly opposite a gigantic crater.
As for the mountains in question, it seems they are around 3,500' tall
pretty darn small actaully.
I dont understand, why they "shoudnt be there", thats a silly assumption.
Look at continental north america or central russia there are mountains in the continental interior.
I would suspect that the mountains are just a remnant of a much larger mountain range that has all but erroded away.
The appalachian mountains once towered, but are now just worn away.
The sierra nevada of california, are mighty mountains today but are only about half as large as the were in the past, they are over two hundred
million years old.
They might have been as large as the himalaya at one time.
Its not such a stretch to think that mountains that were formed a hundred million years ago would be worn down to nothing after all these years of
being scoured by ice.
The land mass that is now antartica has always remained near its present location.
As pangea broke up the other continents moved away from antartica.
and its only been under ice for 15 million years.