<p>I was sniffing around some Mariana topo maps yesterday and found a really discrete spire that seems to start at 35,000 ft and rise to 8,700, making it 26,000 ft tall. As per the attached pictures. Is this actually the case? Doesn’t even seem like a seamount, although I appreciate it might be. Sooooo steep! How is this not really widely talked about?</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/03Eov.jpg" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/03Eov.jpg" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-02T20:37:24.913Z
Not knowing the subject, it seems similar to the other question you answered, except you're suggesting it isn't a seamount.  What's the difference between the terms?  I see "seamount: isolated, submarine mountain rising more than 1000m above the ocean floor. The sharp, crested summits of seamounts are usually 1000-2000m below the ocean surface. Seamounts are of volcanic origin."... so is the volcanic origin you're disputing, or what makes you say these are different from seamounts and thus its own topic?
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-04T23:03:52.400Z
I think it's a seamount, but that's not really my question. I suppose what I'm really asking, is how and why this isn't really famous and well-known given its scale, which is, I think way more mind-bending than the old chestnut of fitting Everest easily in the M trench. It's absolutely immense and extremely discrete; does anything like this exist elsewhere? It's barely two miles across at its base and over five miles high. I fully appreciate I'm not being very scientific.
Dad
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-05T02:42:41.937Z
Unfortunately indeed that's not a question anyone can answer. I think a fair first question is is it legitimate, and then is it rare (I have no idea, but others here could perhaps shed insight). But so far the question is a duplicate then, and your insight turns it towards opinion, neither of which work. I get it's neat, I agree a fair bit, but the purpose here is yet getting meaningful questions answered, not shoehorning a question to get attention on an interest. Perhaps ponder is there something scientific you want to know about it (how does it form that way?), then rework your Q :-)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-05T02:47:25.083Z
Hope that makes sense :-)  Not trying to be a jerk, there's just a certain way StackExchange aims to be, and there's things it isn't (like a discussion board).  Do hope you'll thrive here, but as it stands I think the question for now will likely be voted to close (or overlooked because it's way down in the queue, and we don't have a huge amount of active members)
JeopardyTempest
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-06T06:12:18.743Z
That’s all understood and fair enough. Wrong question in wrong place. Apologies and moving on.
Dad
CC BY-SA 4.0
2022-08-06T23:07:31.723Z
No stress :)  It was a great answer to the other person's question, and glad you're here, hope it's useful to you :)
JeopardyTempest
<oceanography><topography>
Biggest discrete spire on earth?
Dad
# Biggest discrete spire on earth?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2022-08-02)

I was sniffing around some Mariana topo maps yesterday and found a really discrete spire that seems to start at 35,000 ft and rise to 8,700, making it 26,000 ft tall. As per the attached pictures. Is this actually the case? Doesn’t even seem like a seamount, although I appreciate it might be. Sooooo steep! How is this not really widely talked about?

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/03Eov.jpg)](https://i.sstatic.net/03Eov.jpg)

**Tags:** oceanography, topography

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: Not knowing the subject, it seems similar to the other question you answered, except you're suggesting it isn't a seamount.  What's the difference between the terms?  I see "seamount: isolated, submarine mountain rising more than 1000m above the ocean floor. The sharp, crested summits of seamounts are usually 1000-2000m below the ocean surface. Seamounts are of volcanic origin."... so is the volcanic origin you're disputing, or what makes you say these are different from seamounts and thus its own topic?  
> **username_0**: I think it's a seamount, but that's not really my question. I suppose what I'm really asking, is how and why this isn't really famous and well-known given its scale, which is, I think way more mind-bending than the old chestnut of fitting Everest easily in the M trench. It's absolutely immense and extremely discrete; does anything like this exist elsewhere? It's barely two miles across at its base and over five miles high. I fully appreciate I'm not being very scientific.  
> **username_1**: Unfortunately indeed that's not a question anyone can answer. I think a fair first question is is it legitimate, and then is it rare (I have no idea, but others here could perhaps shed insight). But so far the question is a duplicate then, and your insight turns it towards opinion, neither of which work. I get it's neat, I agree a fair bit, but the purpose here is yet getting meaningful questions answered, not shoehorning a question to get attention on an interest. Perhaps ponder is there something scientific you want to know about it (how does it form that way?), then rework your Q :-)  
> **username_1**: Hope that makes sense :-)  Not trying to be a jerk, there's just a certain way StackExchange aims to be, and there's things it isn't (like a discussion board).  Do hope you'll thrive here, but as it stands I think the question for now will likely be voted to close (or overlooked because it's way down in the queue, and we don't have a huge amount of active members)  
> **username_0**: That’s all understood and fair enough. Wrong question in wrong place. Apologies and moving on.  
> **username_1**: No stress :)  It was a great answer to the other person's question, and glad you're here, hope it's useful to you :)  

---

## 0 answers

