Tectonic plates no mountains?

What I asked or what I meant by my question was: if tectonic plates collided and, "hypothetically", something prevented one from sliding over the other creating a mountain, would the unrelieved force of the plates constantly in the state of collision cause the ground above to be unstable in some sort of way? No I did not mean the entire earth. I do not see the big issue about my question or the big deal about me not using a question mark at the end of my question. I ask one question out of curiosity, and what I get back is a whole lot of arrogance and disrespect as if I've insulted someone's mother. What I get is a bunch of people who are seemingly insecure about their intelligence so they decide to respond to a member in an exceedingly crude manner as a way to make them feel better about themselves. Stop being such nazis about it. If this question hurts your feelings so much, then please just skip over it.

No one twisted your arm to answer the hypothetical question asked.

Noone twisted your arm to be a smart ass .
Think about the thickness of the crustal layers of the earth
1 low density compared to mantle and core "It floats"
2Its really thin.3-20 miles compared to the next layer (the mantle) which is 2000 miles deep to the outer (liquid) core.



Itd be really hard to imagine an earth precession, or a wobble based on crustal dynamics. "Hypotheticals" useful in science are those thought games that shouldnt require you to be sent to beginning science to recall the very basics. Some things should have been taught and understood.

I see, so referring to those who pointed out that your hypothetical question is absurd because of its impossibility as nazis shows how secure you are about your intelligence, eh? My initial response to your was not crude, nor did it entail any personal remarks. It certainly did not entail invoking Godwin's Law and referring to you as a nazi. What i see going on with you is that you didn't get the answer you wanted and you resent those who responded to you with an understanding of plate tectonics and orogeny because you did not get the answer you wanted.

Welcome to A2k Saitama :-)

Did you actually learn anything or were you just looking to have your submitted belief validated?

Oh I think he learned a lot!

How bout you? or are you going to remain in the subjunctive?

Note that I didn't mean the entire earth. By earth, I meant the land under our feet.

maybe "Middle Earth"?

So your question was not laced with any sort of rudeness? Your remark about me "taking a risk and using a question mark" was a sign of good will?

So what you're saying is that an extreme instability of the tectonic plates underneath us incessantly colliding(just ignore the absurdity for a moment) would not have an affect on the ground directly beneath us?

Yes. I feel very welcome.

A planet with double the Earth's mass should have even more tectonic activity than Earth, but any growing mountain ranges would be quickly ground down by erosion in the thicker atmosphere.

It was recently suggested that such a planet would be a "superhabitable planet" better than the Earth at supporting life.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superhabitable_planet

There would still be mountain-building processes though. Erosion would just keep the mountains down to size.

That is quite an interesting fact. Haven't planets that resemble earth been found though. I've read somewhere that they have.

Thats an entirely different question than your opening post . If you lived in a tectonically active area (like the Asian margin of the Pacific plate, or the Sunda Plate), your life would be quite "interesting" in that earthquakes could dominate your daily concerns. and many active volcanoes define the plate margins>There also exist several "supervolcanoes" where several plates conjoin at "Triple points".
BUT although the focus of earthquakes (epicenters and hypocenters) would be along those lines, the reach of the effects wouldnt be that far because of the following
1. the earths crust is rather plastic and doesnt support transmittal of devastating energy for great distances
2. PLates are veery thin compared to the even more plastic layers of the mantle

Seismic "Wave" propagation can be destructive , especially in the water , but the actual " Ground Wave" that contains the quake, gets damped quite quickly with distance, almost in a square root function. So, yes, the ground directly beneath you and directly within the effect zone of the seismic waves could be trashed by plate motion, but this energy dissipates quite quickly horizontally unless youre in the path of a seismic tsunami.

What you asked before in your opening post just does NOT occur, even as a dream theme. (Conervation of Mass still works) Weve got enough seismic data and 3D maps of their effect zones gathered over the last 100 years or more that we feel quite confident about the mechanisms.
I gotta say that the concept of "Tectonic plates" wsnt really developed as a tool until the 1960's, even though the data and evidence was being compiled by every discipline from paleo, tructure, paleogeography, to climate science ,as early as the 1920's. (Scientists can be very very conservative in their ability to just drop one thing and pick up another.) It took that final bit of defining an actual MECHANISM that took place in WWII that drove it home.

SOme of my own professors (In the 1970s) just quit their careers in geology rather than take up a whole new paradigm.

I thank you for your answer. Although it did fall into a sort of argument, I am grateful for the consideration you and the others put into your responses. I apologize for any issues that my lack of knowledge brought forth.

we are a contentious bunch. You didnt start anything . Our friend McGentrix did.

Really? Look back at who has the accepted answer.

see what I mean?