>>11627482I have a approach no one has mentioned.
I imagine it as a ratio.
Think of an asteroid, the larger the mass of the object(size and composition), the higher the gravity and the smoother the surface.
So as a ratio with respect to the average distance of the surface of the object from the centre of gravity, you can define a variation in height.
The lower the mass of the object, the greater variation in height.
So the theoretical limit of a mountain is a body whose mass is not too great or not too small.
The height of the mountain will be some ratio to the mass of the object.
I can at least say that the limit is not infinite.
Thinking about this more concretely is hard so I'm just going to list some considerations.
-mars has bigger mountains due to having a lower mass than earth as there is less gravity to resist the tectonic activity
-mars had a decent ratio to tectonic energy in relation to mass
-there are more ways of generating mountains than tectonics alone (including volcanos).
