The Himalaya is to big to stand up by Newtons law. The pressure at the bottom should be so big the rock should melt and the mountain should spit lava from it's sides, such pressure should already be sufficient far above sea level.
Besides that, the whole mountain should quickly sink into the ground. Mountains do not float on lava thus there is no support for the mass. Just like an ice cube in watter or an iceberg in the ocean most of the cube is under the surface.
So that would mean for "solid earth theory" to hold we need an even bigger mountain pointing downwards into the lava!
This idea is of course one of mere insanity as the visible part/above the ground already broke the Newtonian rule kit.
How can they seriously suggest me to accept a chunk of rock 10 times that size sits under it and gives it support while this theory clearly assumes 95% of the mountain is made of an alloy that doesn't exists.
But surly, if such extreme stuff would exist the mountain would have such mass it would move when the moon moves over it.