A world without mountains

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1












I'm relatively new to all this. I'm thinking of studying a little Earth sciences in the hope that it tells me but, up front, I want to know if I'm completely off. I want to know if a world with no high altitudes can be habitable. What leads me to think it might not be is that mountains are indications of



  • tectonic activity and so a liquid core generating a magnetic field repelling radiation,

  • low meteorite activity.

The amount of activity sufficient to result in a world with only large hills and low peaks that never rise above the "tree line", that is the altitude at which plants grow. Can anyone tell me if such a world is feasible? Can I have a habitable world which also has nothing in the way of mountains without constant battering from meteorites? Am I overthinking this and I could just have tectonic plates that don't really move in a way so as to produce mountain ranges? Sorry if this is far too many questions for a single post.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 3




    Raise water level, increase winds and storms, increase gravity and vualà no mountains.
    – Eries
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    @Eries is it habitable though?
    – Alexis
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    @Alexis If you enjoy swimming in cold waters in order to avoid spinal problems from the excess gravity then it won't be that bad, I guess one could get used to anything anyway.
    – Eries
    6 hours ago







  • 2




    Great question, but I don't think it can be reasonably answered here. The things you point out make it less likely that the planet would be habitable than Earth is, based on what we know about Earth. Unfortunately, we have exactly one data point for habitable planets, so no one really knows if a mountain free planet is somewhat unlikely to be habitable or highly unlikely to be habitable. So this question really can't be answered, and I'm going to vote that it should be closed as "opinion based." I did give it a +1 because I think it is a good question, but it isn't a good fit for our site.
    – kingledion
    6 hours ago










  • Funnily enough, my world is intended to be quite wet, where the boundary between land and water bodies is not distinct. The world is covered in primordial plant life, mainly mosses and ferns, the largest being tree ferns and giant club mosses, similar to early earth. However I'm not sure high sea levels are an answer here if I can help it, I was hoping for fairly undulating land, where the land levels never rise considerably. If I increase weathering and gravity, would this be sufficient? What I don't want to end up with is a world with little land, and that which is there, is "peaky".
    – Jeremy Hunter
    6 hours ago














up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1












I'm relatively new to all this. I'm thinking of studying a little Earth sciences in the hope that it tells me but, up front, I want to know if I'm completely off. I want to know if a world with no high altitudes can be habitable. What leads me to think it might not be is that mountains are indications of



  • tectonic activity and so a liquid core generating a magnetic field repelling radiation,

  • low meteorite activity.

The amount of activity sufficient to result in a world with only large hills and low peaks that never rise above the "tree line", that is the altitude at which plants grow. Can anyone tell me if such a world is feasible? Can I have a habitable world which also has nothing in the way of mountains without constant battering from meteorites? Am I overthinking this and I could just have tectonic plates that don't really move in a way so as to produce mountain ranges? Sorry if this is far too many questions for a single post.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.















  • 3




    Raise water level, increase winds and storms, increase gravity and vualà no mountains.
    – Eries
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    @Eries is it habitable though?
    – Alexis
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    @Alexis If you enjoy swimming in cold waters in order to avoid spinal problems from the excess gravity then it won't be that bad, I guess one could get used to anything anyway.
    – Eries
    6 hours ago







  • 2




    Great question, but I don't think it can be reasonably answered here. The things you point out make it less likely that the planet would be habitable than Earth is, based on what we know about Earth. Unfortunately, we have exactly one data point for habitable planets, so no one really knows if a mountain free planet is somewhat unlikely to be habitable or highly unlikely to be habitable. So this question really can't be answered, and I'm going to vote that it should be closed as "opinion based." I did give it a +1 because I think it is a good question, but it isn't a good fit for our site.
    – kingledion
    6 hours ago










  • Funnily enough, my world is intended to be quite wet, where the boundary between land and water bodies is not distinct. The world is covered in primordial plant life, mainly mosses and ferns, the largest being tree ferns and giant club mosses, similar to early earth. However I'm not sure high sea levels are an answer here if I can help it, I was hoping for fairly undulating land, where the land levels never rise considerably. If I increase weathering and gravity, would this be sufficient? What I don't want to end up with is a world with little land, and that which is there, is "peaky".
    – Jeremy Hunter
    6 hours ago












up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1









up vote
7
down vote

favorite
1






1





I'm relatively new to all this. I'm thinking of studying a little Earth sciences in the hope that it tells me but, up front, I want to know if I'm completely off. I want to know if a world with no high altitudes can be habitable. What leads me to think it might not be is that mountains are indications of



  • tectonic activity and so a liquid core generating a magnetic field repelling radiation,

  • low meteorite activity.

The amount of activity sufficient to result in a world with only large hills and low peaks that never rise above the "tree line", that is the altitude at which plants grow. Can anyone tell me if such a world is feasible? Can I have a habitable world which also has nothing in the way of mountains without constant battering from meteorites? Am I overthinking this and I could just have tectonic plates that don't really move in a way so as to produce mountain ranges? Sorry if this is far too many questions for a single post.










share|improve this question









New contributor




Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











I'm relatively new to all this. I'm thinking of studying a little Earth sciences in the hope that it tells me but, up front, I want to know if I'm completely off. I want to know if a world with no high altitudes can be habitable. What leads me to think it might not be is that mountains are indications of



  • tectonic activity and so a liquid core generating a magnetic field repelling radiation,

  • low meteorite activity.

The amount of activity sufficient to result in a world with only large hills and low peaks that never rise above the "tree line", that is the altitude at which plants grow. Can anyone tell me if such a world is feasible? Can I have a habitable world which also has nothing in the way of mountains without constant battering from meteorites? Am I overthinking this and I could just have tectonic plates that don't really move in a way so as to produce mountain ranges? Sorry if this is far too many questions for a single post.







geology weather mountains tectonics






share|improve this question









New contributor




Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.











share|improve this question









New contributor




Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









share|improve this question




share|improve this question








edited 5 hours ago









L.Dutch

67.6k20162319




67.6k20162319






New contributor




Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.









asked 7 hours ago









Jeremy Hunter

362




362




New contributor




Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.





New contributor





Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.






Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.







  • 3




    Raise water level, increase winds and storms, increase gravity and vualà no mountains.
    – Eries
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    @Eries is it habitable though?
    – Alexis
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    @Alexis If you enjoy swimming in cold waters in order to avoid spinal problems from the excess gravity then it won't be that bad, I guess one could get used to anything anyway.
    – Eries
    6 hours ago







  • 2




    Great question, but I don't think it can be reasonably answered here. The things you point out make it less likely that the planet would be habitable than Earth is, based on what we know about Earth. Unfortunately, we have exactly one data point for habitable planets, so no one really knows if a mountain free planet is somewhat unlikely to be habitable or highly unlikely to be habitable. So this question really can't be answered, and I'm going to vote that it should be closed as "opinion based." I did give it a +1 because I think it is a good question, but it isn't a good fit for our site.
    – kingledion
    6 hours ago










  • Funnily enough, my world is intended to be quite wet, where the boundary between land and water bodies is not distinct. The world is covered in primordial plant life, mainly mosses and ferns, the largest being tree ferns and giant club mosses, similar to early earth. However I'm not sure high sea levels are an answer here if I can help it, I was hoping for fairly undulating land, where the land levels never rise considerably. If I increase weathering and gravity, would this be sufficient? What I don't want to end up with is a world with little land, and that which is there, is "peaky".
    – Jeremy Hunter
    6 hours ago












  • 3




    Raise water level, increase winds and storms, increase gravity and vualà no mountains.
    – Eries
    7 hours ago






  • 1




    @Eries is it habitable though?
    – Alexis
    6 hours ago






  • 1




    @Alexis If you enjoy swimming in cold waters in order to avoid spinal problems from the excess gravity then it won't be that bad, I guess one could get used to anything anyway.
    – Eries
    6 hours ago







  • 2




    Great question, but I don't think it can be reasonably answered here. The things you point out make it less likely that the planet would be habitable than Earth is, based on what we know about Earth. Unfortunately, we have exactly one data point for habitable planets, so no one really knows if a mountain free planet is somewhat unlikely to be habitable or highly unlikely to be habitable. So this question really can't be answered, and I'm going to vote that it should be closed as "opinion based." I did give it a +1 because I think it is a good question, but it isn't a good fit for our site.
    – kingledion
    6 hours ago










  • Funnily enough, my world is intended to be quite wet, where the boundary between land and water bodies is not distinct. The world is covered in primordial plant life, mainly mosses and ferns, the largest being tree ferns and giant club mosses, similar to early earth. However I'm not sure high sea levels are an answer here if I can help it, I was hoping for fairly undulating land, where the land levels never rise considerably. If I increase weathering and gravity, would this be sufficient? What I don't want to end up with is a world with little land, and that which is there, is "peaky".
    – Jeremy Hunter
    6 hours ago







3




3




Raise water level, increase winds and storms, increase gravity and vualà no mountains.
– Eries
7 hours ago




Raise water level, increase winds and storms, increase gravity and vualà no mountains.
– Eries
7 hours ago




1




1




@Eries is it habitable though?
– Alexis
6 hours ago




@Eries is it habitable though?
– Alexis
6 hours ago




1




1




@Alexis If you enjoy swimming in cold waters in order to avoid spinal problems from the excess gravity then it won't be that bad, I guess one could get used to anything anyway.
– Eries
6 hours ago





@Alexis If you enjoy swimming in cold waters in order to avoid spinal problems from the excess gravity then it won't be that bad, I guess one could get used to anything anyway.
– Eries
6 hours ago





2




2




Great question, but I don't think it can be reasonably answered here. The things you point out make it less likely that the planet would be habitable than Earth is, based on what we know about Earth. Unfortunately, we have exactly one data point for habitable planets, so no one really knows if a mountain free planet is somewhat unlikely to be habitable or highly unlikely to be habitable. So this question really can't be answered, and I'm going to vote that it should be closed as "opinion based." I did give it a +1 because I think it is a good question, but it isn't a good fit for our site.
– kingledion
6 hours ago




Great question, but I don't think it can be reasonably answered here. The things you point out make it less likely that the planet would be habitable than Earth is, based on what we know about Earth. Unfortunately, we have exactly one data point for habitable planets, so no one really knows if a mountain free planet is somewhat unlikely to be habitable or highly unlikely to be habitable. So this question really can't be answered, and I'm going to vote that it should be closed as "opinion based." I did give it a +1 because I think it is a good question, but it isn't a good fit for our site.
– kingledion
6 hours ago












Funnily enough, my world is intended to be quite wet, where the boundary between land and water bodies is not distinct. The world is covered in primordial plant life, mainly mosses and ferns, the largest being tree ferns and giant club mosses, similar to early earth. However I'm not sure high sea levels are an answer here if I can help it, I was hoping for fairly undulating land, where the land levels never rise considerably. If I increase weathering and gravity, would this be sufficient? What I don't want to end up with is a world with little land, and that which is there, is "peaky".
– Jeremy Hunter
6 hours ago




Funnily enough, my world is intended to be quite wet, where the boundary between land and water bodies is not distinct. The world is covered in primordial plant life, mainly mosses and ferns, the largest being tree ferns and giant club mosses, similar to early earth. However I'm not sure high sea levels are an answer here if I can help it, I was hoping for fairly undulating land, where the land levels never rise considerably. If I increase weathering and gravity, would this be sufficient? What I don't want to end up with is a world with little land, and that which is there, is "peaky".
– Jeremy Hunter
6 hours ago










6 Answers
6






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
3
down vote













The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa. It does have plate tectonics, of a sort, but it's ice plates floating on a water ocean. In terms of habitability, not great. Also, smoothness is here defined as maximum deviation from ellipsoid, not how steep those deviations are. I recently read (I forget where) that it might have fields of knife-like ice projections (which have a name that I also forgot) metres high and quite impassable.



Since you're probably looking for something more earth-like, I would guess that you can't avoid mountains. To develop complex life, you need a healthy mix of elements on the surface, plus a reasonable protection from radiation. You get the first from tectonics and volcanism, and the second from a molten ferromagnetic core that provides a magnetosphere. You also need surface volatiles (water, atmosphere) which in Earth's case got there from cometary bombardment, if memory serves. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.



Finally, I would think that thermodynamics on a flat planet would be too bland. We have no idea how life got started (ok, we have too many ideas), but what is sure is that you need an mixture of gradients: one chemical species diffusing from A to B, a temperature gradient going in a different direction, a liquid current carrying everything the third way etc. That is why all models of biogenesis, starting with Darwin's warm little pond are on some kind of interface. If the planet is too flat, I suspect the conditions might be too uniform. I haven't checked this suspicion in any way, and I doubt anyone has, so it could be completely wrong. But I have a hunch.



Of course, you might not want life to develop there, just to be able to terraform and settle it. In that case, apart from probable lack of magnetosphere, I don't see any objections. Your ecosystems might be a bit boring, though.



Follow-up



An idea that might work: take an old planet around an old sun, and make it the only planet in the system. You could have a red dwarf that got too close to some energetic young suns and had the rest of its planets stripped away. Leave a circum-stellar dust ring that provides just enough micro-bombardments for any mountains to be eroded to low hills.



Now you have the right shape, but you lack water and atmosphere. No problem: the micro-bombardment has gradually shifted the planet's orbit outward (would that happen? Um...) and the outer layers of the dust ring are water-rich (which would happen). So a layer of water accumulates on the planet. Take it from there.






share|improve this answer






















  • No meteor impact can make a meaningful shift in a planet's orbit. Even a planet-shattering collision with something of comparable size will only produce an asteroid belt in roughly the former planet's orbit.
    – Mark
    5 hours ago










  • @Mark what no, in the early solar system, planets got knocked out of orbit all the time.
    – anon
    5 hours ago










  • "The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa." Smoother than the Earth (which is very smooth compared to it's diameter)?
    – RonJohn
    4 hours ago






  • 1




    Europa's a planet? Cool!
    – only_pro
    4 hours ago










  • @only_pro I've always missed pluto, now we got back up to 9!
    – Reed
    3 hours ago

















up vote
2
down vote














What leads me to think it might not be is that mountains are indications of a) tectonic activity and so a liquid core generating a magnetic field repelling radiation,




That's correct.




and b) low meteorite activity.




I don't think that's correct. (Low circular hills, yes, but mountains? No.)






share|improve this answer




















  • Can you expand on your second point please? If anything was going to eradicate mountains, it would be sufficiently heavy bombardment as to effectively melt the surface, resulting in a new face, this is what I mean.
    – Jeremy Hunter
    5 hours ago










  • @JeremyHunter what happens when you melt something tall (like an ice cube or lump of butter)? It melts into liquid. Liquids are notoriously poor at being mountains. They are -- in fact -- much better at flatness. Thus, that's what you need if you want a mountain-free planet.
    – RonJohn
    5 hours ago










  • That's what I thought. When you said you don't think it's correct, I think there might have been a misphrasing on my part. The low meteorite activity was referring to habitability (which it wouldn't help), rather than eradicating mountains (which it would be good at)
    – Jeremy Hunter
    5 hours ago










  • @JeremyHunter how low is "low meteorite activity"? Earth certainly has low meteorite activity. Such activity does nothing to hinder our planet's habitability and certainly doesn't eradicate mountains.
    – RonJohn
    5 hours ago

















up vote
2
down vote













This is actually a more thought provoking question than it seems at face value. You are not overthinking things and if anything by overthinking it you make it worth exploring.



Though the first challenge is the ambiguity in the usage of habitable. Starting with Europa, it potentially meets all the qualifications. I believe Europa's surface meets the shape requirements. As for habitability. Scientists believe that beneath the ice there is likely lots of liquid water with the possibility for life. If that is the case that then could be habitable with undersea colonies. Kinda like Rapture.



So Europa or a similar setup potentially passes the test Also extends to water worlds



If you meant more conventional habitability with land then that is much more difficult. NO It shouldn't be possible. To better understand tectonics imagine a balloon deflating. when it reaches a certain size you begin to see ripples and sag marks as the material contracts with no where to go but bulge. This is similar to what happens as a planets core cools. The rock contracts resulting in mountains forming. Even on Mars this process is still happening.



Point is a planet would have to be completely cold for tectonics to stop. Therefore it would be inhabitable.



The other way to achieve this and be geologically active would be to have hyper erosion. The chemistry and energy needed to make this happen would be in-hospitable for non microbial life.






share|improve this answer
















  • 1




    Thanks for seeing why I think it is a challenging issue. It makes me think of that watery planet in Interstellar. For vast swathes of flat land to be covered in just a relatively thin layer of water with no land to break up waves allowing them to build up hundreds of feet, wouldn't it mean no tectonic activity, and with no activity, what would prevent radiation stripping away an atmosphere and freezing the water on that planet? Would I face a similar problem?
    – Jeremy Hunter
    5 hours ago










  • I guess by "inhabitable", I mean the atmosphere would be composed of sufficiently hospitable elements and of a temperature and moisture range that would host plant life (though nothing as serious as large, woody trees in "the wild") out in the open, and humans would not find it very difficult to construct settlements on the planet. The issue of Europa in a watery sense means the whole surface would need to be watery. Maybe floating islands would be a better place for humans to live on this planet?
    – Jeremy Hunter
    5 hours ago










  • nothing, a cold planet is dead and the atmosphere is getting stripped. The water planet is intersteler is a different story and was inhabitable as an example of hyper erosion.
    – anon
    5 hours ago

















up vote
0
down vote













Earth was like this sometime in the Archean Eon



Life started in the early Archean (Earth was habitable in the Archean).



The first continents formed in the Archean. Mountains are caused by two continents colliding or rubbing together.



Some continent had to be the first continent. So there was a time when Earth was habitable but couldn't make a mountain because it didn't have two continents to rub together.






share|improve this answer




















  • See I thought about this too, but you have to realize that what the Archean is thought to look like is incredibly theoretical at the moment. Much of the geologic record from this time has been lost which is part of the ambiguity. Also if you consider the fact that this time must have been plagued with rampant volcanos then theres no way it can meet the requirements
    – anon
    4 hours ago

















up vote
0
down vote













Less likely,but not improbable. And habitable for what? Life is not all about humans. Meaby you have more or less flat continent and all that not-so-common activity is down below in your oceans. Harsher weather is not something you can not overcome and adapt to.
If you fear meteors better to have less them in your solar system and have good pal gas giant collecting them for you.






share|improve this answer








New contributor




Artemijs Danilovs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
























    up vote
    -1
    down vote













    An Iron planet they have no plate tectonics or strong magnetic field as they cool rapidly after formation. This leaves you with a pretty barren planet though.






    share|improve this answer








    New contributor




    Neo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
    Check out our Code of Conduct.

















      Your Answer





      StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
      return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
      StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
      StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
      );
      );
      , "mathjax-editing");

      StackExchange.ready(function()
      var channelOptions =
      tags: "".split(" "),
      id: "579"
      ;
      initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

      StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
      // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
      if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
      StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
      createEditor();
      );

      else
      createEditor();

      );

      function createEditor()
      StackExchange.prepareEditor(
      heartbeatType: 'answer',
      convertImagesToLinks: false,
      noModals: true,
      showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
      reputationToPostImages: null,
      bindNavPrevention: true,
      postfix: "",
      imageUploader:
      brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
      contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
      allowUrls: true
      ,
      noCode: true, onDemand: true,
      discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
      ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
      );



      );






      Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









       

      draft saved


      draft discarded


















      StackExchange.ready(
      function ()
      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f129724%2fa-world-without-mountains%23new-answer', 'question_page');

      );

      Post as a guest






























      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes








      6 Answers
      6






      active

      oldest

      votes









      active

      oldest

      votes






      active

      oldest

      votes








      up vote
      3
      down vote













      The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa. It does have plate tectonics, of a sort, but it's ice plates floating on a water ocean. In terms of habitability, not great. Also, smoothness is here defined as maximum deviation from ellipsoid, not how steep those deviations are. I recently read (I forget where) that it might have fields of knife-like ice projections (which have a name that I also forgot) metres high and quite impassable.



      Since you're probably looking for something more earth-like, I would guess that you can't avoid mountains. To develop complex life, you need a healthy mix of elements on the surface, plus a reasonable protection from radiation. You get the first from tectonics and volcanism, and the second from a molten ferromagnetic core that provides a magnetosphere. You also need surface volatiles (water, atmosphere) which in Earth's case got there from cometary bombardment, if memory serves. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.



      Finally, I would think that thermodynamics on a flat planet would be too bland. We have no idea how life got started (ok, we have too many ideas), but what is sure is that you need an mixture of gradients: one chemical species diffusing from A to B, a temperature gradient going in a different direction, a liquid current carrying everything the third way etc. That is why all models of biogenesis, starting with Darwin's warm little pond are on some kind of interface. If the planet is too flat, I suspect the conditions might be too uniform. I haven't checked this suspicion in any way, and I doubt anyone has, so it could be completely wrong. But I have a hunch.



      Of course, you might not want life to develop there, just to be able to terraform and settle it. In that case, apart from probable lack of magnetosphere, I don't see any objections. Your ecosystems might be a bit boring, though.



      Follow-up



      An idea that might work: take an old planet around an old sun, and make it the only planet in the system. You could have a red dwarf that got too close to some energetic young suns and had the rest of its planets stripped away. Leave a circum-stellar dust ring that provides just enough micro-bombardments for any mountains to be eroded to low hills.



      Now you have the right shape, but you lack water and atmosphere. No problem: the micro-bombardment has gradually shifted the planet's orbit outward (would that happen? Um...) and the outer layers of the dust ring are water-rich (which would happen). So a layer of water accumulates on the planet. Take it from there.






      share|improve this answer






















      • No meteor impact can make a meaningful shift in a planet's orbit. Even a planet-shattering collision with something of comparable size will only produce an asteroid belt in roughly the former planet's orbit.
        – Mark
        5 hours ago










      • @Mark what no, in the early solar system, planets got knocked out of orbit all the time.
        – anon
        5 hours ago










      • "The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa." Smoother than the Earth (which is very smooth compared to it's diameter)?
        – RonJohn
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        Europa's a planet? Cool!
        – only_pro
        4 hours ago










      • @only_pro I've always missed pluto, now we got back up to 9!
        – Reed
        3 hours ago














      up vote
      3
      down vote













      The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa. It does have plate tectonics, of a sort, but it's ice plates floating on a water ocean. In terms of habitability, not great. Also, smoothness is here defined as maximum deviation from ellipsoid, not how steep those deviations are. I recently read (I forget where) that it might have fields of knife-like ice projections (which have a name that I also forgot) metres high and quite impassable.



      Since you're probably looking for something more earth-like, I would guess that you can't avoid mountains. To develop complex life, you need a healthy mix of elements on the surface, plus a reasonable protection from radiation. You get the first from tectonics and volcanism, and the second from a molten ferromagnetic core that provides a magnetosphere. You also need surface volatiles (water, atmosphere) which in Earth's case got there from cometary bombardment, if memory serves. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.



      Finally, I would think that thermodynamics on a flat planet would be too bland. We have no idea how life got started (ok, we have too many ideas), but what is sure is that you need an mixture of gradients: one chemical species diffusing from A to B, a temperature gradient going in a different direction, a liquid current carrying everything the third way etc. That is why all models of biogenesis, starting with Darwin's warm little pond are on some kind of interface. If the planet is too flat, I suspect the conditions might be too uniform. I haven't checked this suspicion in any way, and I doubt anyone has, so it could be completely wrong. But I have a hunch.



      Of course, you might not want life to develop there, just to be able to terraform and settle it. In that case, apart from probable lack of magnetosphere, I don't see any objections. Your ecosystems might be a bit boring, though.



      Follow-up



      An idea that might work: take an old planet around an old sun, and make it the only planet in the system. You could have a red dwarf that got too close to some energetic young suns and had the rest of its planets stripped away. Leave a circum-stellar dust ring that provides just enough micro-bombardments for any mountains to be eroded to low hills.



      Now you have the right shape, but you lack water and atmosphere. No problem: the micro-bombardment has gradually shifted the planet's orbit outward (would that happen? Um...) and the outer layers of the dust ring are water-rich (which would happen). So a layer of water accumulates on the planet. Take it from there.






      share|improve this answer






















      • No meteor impact can make a meaningful shift in a planet's orbit. Even a planet-shattering collision with something of comparable size will only produce an asteroid belt in roughly the former planet's orbit.
        – Mark
        5 hours ago










      • @Mark what no, in the early solar system, planets got knocked out of orbit all the time.
        – anon
        5 hours ago










      • "The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa." Smoother than the Earth (which is very smooth compared to it's diameter)?
        – RonJohn
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        Europa's a planet? Cool!
        – only_pro
        4 hours ago










      • @only_pro I've always missed pluto, now we got back up to 9!
        – Reed
        3 hours ago












      up vote
      3
      down vote










      up vote
      3
      down vote









      The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa. It does have plate tectonics, of a sort, but it's ice plates floating on a water ocean. In terms of habitability, not great. Also, smoothness is here defined as maximum deviation from ellipsoid, not how steep those deviations are. I recently read (I forget where) that it might have fields of knife-like ice projections (which have a name that I also forgot) metres high and quite impassable.



      Since you're probably looking for something more earth-like, I would guess that you can't avoid mountains. To develop complex life, you need a healthy mix of elements on the surface, plus a reasonable protection from radiation. You get the first from tectonics and volcanism, and the second from a molten ferromagnetic core that provides a magnetosphere. You also need surface volatiles (water, atmosphere) which in Earth's case got there from cometary bombardment, if memory serves. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.



      Finally, I would think that thermodynamics on a flat planet would be too bland. We have no idea how life got started (ok, we have too many ideas), but what is sure is that you need an mixture of gradients: one chemical species diffusing from A to B, a temperature gradient going in a different direction, a liquid current carrying everything the third way etc. That is why all models of biogenesis, starting with Darwin's warm little pond are on some kind of interface. If the planet is too flat, I suspect the conditions might be too uniform. I haven't checked this suspicion in any way, and I doubt anyone has, so it could be completely wrong. But I have a hunch.



      Of course, you might not want life to develop there, just to be able to terraform and settle it. In that case, apart from probable lack of magnetosphere, I don't see any objections. Your ecosystems might be a bit boring, though.



      Follow-up



      An idea that might work: take an old planet around an old sun, and make it the only planet in the system. You could have a red dwarf that got too close to some energetic young suns and had the rest of its planets stripped away. Leave a circum-stellar dust ring that provides just enough micro-bombardments for any mountains to be eroded to low hills.



      Now you have the right shape, but you lack water and atmosphere. No problem: the micro-bombardment has gradually shifted the planet's orbit outward (would that happen? Um...) and the outer layers of the dust ring are water-rich (which would happen). So a layer of water accumulates on the planet. Take it from there.






      share|improve this answer














      The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa. It does have plate tectonics, of a sort, but it's ice plates floating on a water ocean. In terms of habitability, not great. Also, smoothness is here defined as maximum deviation from ellipsoid, not how steep those deviations are. I recently read (I forget where) that it might have fields of knife-like ice projections (which have a name that I also forgot) metres high and quite impassable.



      Since you're probably looking for something more earth-like, I would guess that you can't avoid mountains. To develop complex life, you need a healthy mix of elements on the surface, plus a reasonable protection from radiation. You get the first from tectonics and volcanism, and the second from a molten ferromagnetic core that provides a magnetosphere. You also need surface volatiles (water, atmosphere) which in Earth's case got there from cometary bombardment, if memory serves. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.



      Finally, I would think that thermodynamics on a flat planet would be too bland. We have no idea how life got started (ok, we have too many ideas), but what is sure is that you need an mixture of gradients: one chemical species diffusing from A to B, a temperature gradient going in a different direction, a liquid current carrying everything the third way etc. That is why all models of biogenesis, starting with Darwin's warm little pond are on some kind of interface. If the planet is too flat, I suspect the conditions might be too uniform. I haven't checked this suspicion in any way, and I doubt anyone has, so it could be completely wrong. But I have a hunch.



      Of course, you might not want life to develop there, just to be able to terraform and settle it. In that case, apart from probable lack of magnetosphere, I don't see any objections. Your ecosystems might be a bit boring, though.



      Follow-up



      An idea that might work: take an old planet around an old sun, and make it the only planet in the system. You could have a red dwarf that got too close to some energetic young suns and had the rest of its planets stripped away. Leave a circum-stellar dust ring that provides just enough micro-bombardments for any mountains to be eroded to low hills.



      Now you have the right shape, but you lack water and atmosphere. No problem: the micro-bombardment has gradually shifted the planet's orbit outward (would that happen? Um...) and the outer layers of the dust ring are water-rich (which would happen). So a layer of water accumulates on the planet. Take it from there.







      share|improve this answer














      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer








      edited 5 hours ago

























      answered 6 hours ago









      Tumbislav

      1,231414




      1,231414











      • No meteor impact can make a meaningful shift in a planet's orbit. Even a planet-shattering collision with something of comparable size will only produce an asteroid belt in roughly the former planet's orbit.
        – Mark
        5 hours ago










      • @Mark what no, in the early solar system, planets got knocked out of orbit all the time.
        – anon
        5 hours ago










      • "The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa." Smoother than the Earth (which is very smooth compared to it's diameter)?
        – RonJohn
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        Europa's a planet? Cool!
        – only_pro
        4 hours ago










      • @only_pro I've always missed pluto, now we got back up to 9!
        – Reed
        3 hours ago
















      • No meteor impact can make a meaningful shift in a planet's orbit. Even a planet-shattering collision with something of comparable size will only produce an asteroid belt in roughly the former planet's orbit.
        – Mark
        5 hours ago










      • @Mark what no, in the early solar system, planets got knocked out of orbit all the time.
        – anon
        5 hours ago










      • "The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa." Smoother than the Earth (which is very smooth compared to it's diameter)?
        – RonJohn
        4 hours ago






      • 1




        Europa's a planet? Cool!
        – only_pro
        4 hours ago










      • @only_pro I've always missed pluto, now we got back up to 9!
        – Reed
        3 hours ago















      No meteor impact can make a meaningful shift in a planet's orbit. Even a planet-shattering collision with something of comparable size will only produce an asteroid belt in roughly the former planet's orbit.
      – Mark
      5 hours ago




      No meteor impact can make a meaningful shift in a planet's orbit. Even a planet-shattering collision with something of comparable size will only produce an asteroid belt in roughly the former planet's orbit.
      – Mark
      5 hours ago












      @Mark what no, in the early solar system, planets got knocked out of orbit all the time.
      – anon
      5 hours ago




      @Mark what no, in the early solar system, planets got knocked out of orbit all the time.
      – anon
      5 hours ago












      "The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa." Smoother than the Earth (which is very smooth compared to it's diameter)?
      – RonJohn
      4 hours ago




      "The smoothest planet in the solar system is probably, AFAIK, Europa." Smoother than the Earth (which is very smooth compared to it's diameter)?
      – RonJohn
      4 hours ago




      1




      1




      Europa's a planet? Cool!
      – only_pro
      4 hours ago




      Europa's a planet? Cool!
      – only_pro
      4 hours ago












      @only_pro I've always missed pluto, now we got back up to 9!
      – Reed
      3 hours ago




      @only_pro I've always missed pluto, now we got back up to 9!
      – Reed
      3 hours ago










      up vote
      2
      down vote














      What leads me to think it might not be is that mountains are indications of a) tectonic activity and so a liquid core generating a magnetic field repelling radiation,




      That's correct.




      and b) low meteorite activity.




      I don't think that's correct. (Low circular hills, yes, but mountains? No.)






      share|improve this answer




















      • Can you expand on your second point please? If anything was going to eradicate mountains, it would be sufficiently heavy bombardment as to effectively melt the surface, resulting in a new face, this is what I mean.
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • @JeremyHunter what happens when you melt something tall (like an ice cube or lump of butter)? It melts into liquid. Liquids are notoriously poor at being mountains. They are -- in fact -- much better at flatness. Thus, that's what you need if you want a mountain-free planet.
        – RonJohn
        5 hours ago










      • That's what I thought. When you said you don't think it's correct, I think there might have been a misphrasing on my part. The low meteorite activity was referring to habitability (which it wouldn't help), rather than eradicating mountains (which it would be good at)
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • @JeremyHunter how low is "low meteorite activity"? Earth certainly has low meteorite activity. Such activity does nothing to hinder our planet's habitability and certainly doesn't eradicate mountains.
        – RonJohn
        5 hours ago














      up vote
      2
      down vote














      What leads me to think it might not be is that mountains are indications of a) tectonic activity and so a liquid core generating a magnetic field repelling radiation,




      That's correct.




      and b) low meteorite activity.




      I don't think that's correct. (Low circular hills, yes, but mountains? No.)






      share|improve this answer




















      • Can you expand on your second point please? If anything was going to eradicate mountains, it would be sufficiently heavy bombardment as to effectively melt the surface, resulting in a new face, this is what I mean.
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • @JeremyHunter what happens when you melt something tall (like an ice cube or lump of butter)? It melts into liquid. Liquids are notoriously poor at being mountains. They are -- in fact -- much better at flatness. Thus, that's what you need if you want a mountain-free planet.
        – RonJohn
        5 hours ago










      • That's what I thought. When you said you don't think it's correct, I think there might have been a misphrasing on my part. The low meteorite activity was referring to habitability (which it wouldn't help), rather than eradicating mountains (which it would be good at)
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • @JeremyHunter how low is "low meteorite activity"? Earth certainly has low meteorite activity. Such activity does nothing to hinder our planet's habitability and certainly doesn't eradicate mountains.
        – RonJohn
        5 hours ago












      up vote
      2
      down vote










      up vote
      2
      down vote










      What leads me to think it might not be is that mountains are indications of a) tectonic activity and so a liquid core generating a magnetic field repelling radiation,




      That's correct.




      and b) low meteorite activity.




      I don't think that's correct. (Low circular hills, yes, but mountains? No.)






      share|improve this answer













      What leads me to think it might not be is that mountains are indications of a) tectonic activity and so a liquid core generating a magnetic field repelling radiation,




      That's correct.




      and b) low meteorite activity.




      I don't think that's correct. (Low circular hills, yes, but mountains? No.)







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 5 hours ago









      RonJohn

      14.1k12767




      14.1k12767











      • Can you expand on your second point please? If anything was going to eradicate mountains, it would be sufficiently heavy bombardment as to effectively melt the surface, resulting in a new face, this is what I mean.
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • @JeremyHunter what happens when you melt something tall (like an ice cube or lump of butter)? It melts into liquid. Liquids are notoriously poor at being mountains. They are -- in fact -- much better at flatness. Thus, that's what you need if you want a mountain-free planet.
        – RonJohn
        5 hours ago










      • That's what I thought. When you said you don't think it's correct, I think there might have been a misphrasing on my part. The low meteorite activity was referring to habitability (which it wouldn't help), rather than eradicating mountains (which it would be good at)
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • @JeremyHunter how low is "low meteorite activity"? Earth certainly has low meteorite activity. Such activity does nothing to hinder our planet's habitability and certainly doesn't eradicate mountains.
        – RonJohn
        5 hours ago
















      • Can you expand on your second point please? If anything was going to eradicate mountains, it would be sufficiently heavy bombardment as to effectively melt the surface, resulting in a new face, this is what I mean.
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • @JeremyHunter what happens when you melt something tall (like an ice cube or lump of butter)? It melts into liquid. Liquids are notoriously poor at being mountains. They are -- in fact -- much better at flatness. Thus, that's what you need if you want a mountain-free planet.
        – RonJohn
        5 hours ago










      • That's what I thought. When you said you don't think it's correct, I think there might have been a misphrasing on my part. The low meteorite activity was referring to habitability (which it wouldn't help), rather than eradicating mountains (which it would be good at)
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • @JeremyHunter how low is "low meteorite activity"? Earth certainly has low meteorite activity. Such activity does nothing to hinder our planet's habitability and certainly doesn't eradicate mountains.
        – RonJohn
        5 hours ago















      Can you expand on your second point please? If anything was going to eradicate mountains, it would be sufficiently heavy bombardment as to effectively melt the surface, resulting in a new face, this is what I mean.
      – Jeremy Hunter
      5 hours ago




      Can you expand on your second point please? If anything was going to eradicate mountains, it would be sufficiently heavy bombardment as to effectively melt the surface, resulting in a new face, this is what I mean.
      – Jeremy Hunter
      5 hours ago












      @JeremyHunter what happens when you melt something tall (like an ice cube or lump of butter)? It melts into liquid. Liquids are notoriously poor at being mountains. They are -- in fact -- much better at flatness. Thus, that's what you need if you want a mountain-free planet.
      – RonJohn
      5 hours ago




      @JeremyHunter what happens when you melt something tall (like an ice cube or lump of butter)? It melts into liquid. Liquids are notoriously poor at being mountains. They are -- in fact -- much better at flatness. Thus, that's what you need if you want a mountain-free planet.
      – RonJohn
      5 hours ago












      That's what I thought. When you said you don't think it's correct, I think there might have been a misphrasing on my part. The low meteorite activity was referring to habitability (which it wouldn't help), rather than eradicating mountains (which it would be good at)
      – Jeremy Hunter
      5 hours ago




      That's what I thought. When you said you don't think it's correct, I think there might have been a misphrasing on my part. The low meteorite activity was referring to habitability (which it wouldn't help), rather than eradicating mountains (which it would be good at)
      – Jeremy Hunter
      5 hours ago












      @JeremyHunter how low is "low meteorite activity"? Earth certainly has low meteorite activity. Such activity does nothing to hinder our planet's habitability and certainly doesn't eradicate mountains.
      – RonJohn
      5 hours ago




      @JeremyHunter how low is "low meteorite activity"? Earth certainly has low meteorite activity. Such activity does nothing to hinder our planet's habitability and certainly doesn't eradicate mountains.
      – RonJohn
      5 hours ago










      up vote
      2
      down vote













      This is actually a more thought provoking question than it seems at face value. You are not overthinking things and if anything by overthinking it you make it worth exploring.



      Though the first challenge is the ambiguity in the usage of habitable. Starting with Europa, it potentially meets all the qualifications. I believe Europa's surface meets the shape requirements. As for habitability. Scientists believe that beneath the ice there is likely lots of liquid water with the possibility for life. If that is the case that then could be habitable with undersea colonies. Kinda like Rapture.



      So Europa or a similar setup potentially passes the test Also extends to water worlds



      If you meant more conventional habitability with land then that is much more difficult. NO It shouldn't be possible. To better understand tectonics imagine a balloon deflating. when it reaches a certain size you begin to see ripples and sag marks as the material contracts with no where to go but bulge. This is similar to what happens as a planets core cools. The rock contracts resulting in mountains forming. Even on Mars this process is still happening.



      Point is a planet would have to be completely cold for tectonics to stop. Therefore it would be inhabitable.



      The other way to achieve this and be geologically active would be to have hyper erosion. The chemistry and energy needed to make this happen would be in-hospitable for non microbial life.






      share|improve this answer
















      • 1




        Thanks for seeing why I think it is a challenging issue. It makes me think of that watery planet in Interstellar. For vast swathes of flat land to be covered in just a relatively thin layer of water with no land to break up waves allowing them to build up hundreds of feet, wouldn't it mean no tectonic activity, and with no activity, what would prevent radiation stripping away an atmosphere and freezing the water on that planet? Would I face a similar problem?
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • I guess by "inhabitable", I mean the atmosphere would be composed of sufficiently hospitable elements and of a temperature and moisture range that would host plant life (though nothing as serious as large, woody trees in "the wild") out in the open, and humans would not find it very difficult to construct settlements on the planet. The issue of Europa in a watery sense means the whole surface would need to be watery. Maybe floating islands would be a better place for humans to live on this planet?
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • nothing, a cold planet is dead and the atmosphere is getting stripped. The water planet is intersteler is a different story and was inhabitable as an example of hyper erosion.
        – anon
        5 hours ago














      up vote
      2
      down vote













      This is actually a more thought provoking question than it seems at face value. You are not overthinking things and if anything by overthinking it you make it worth exploring.



      Though the first challenge is the ambiguity in the usage of habitable. Starting with Europa, it potentially meets all the qualifications. I believe Europa's surface meets the shape requirements. As for habitability. Scientists believe that beneath the ice there is likely lots of liquid water with the possibility for life. If that is the case that then could be habitable with undersea colonies. Kinda like Rapture.



      So Europa or a similar setup potentially passes the test Also extends to water worlds



      If you meant more conventional habitability with land then that is much more difficult. NO It shouldn't be possible. To better understand tectonics imagine a balloon deflating. when it reaches a certain size you begin to see ripples and sag marks as the material contracts with no where to go but bulge. This is similar to what happens as a planets core cools. The rock contracts resulting in mountains forming. Even on Mars this process is still happening.



      Point is a planet would have to be completely cold for tectonics to stop. Therefore it would be inhabitable.



      The other way to achieve this and be geologically active would be to have hyper erosion. The chemistry and energy needed to make this happen would be in-hospitable for non microbial life.






      share|improve this answer
















      • 1




        Thanks for seeing why I think it is a challenging issue. It makes me think of that watery planet in Interstellar. For vast swathes of flat land to be covered in just a relatively thin layer of water with no land to break up waves allowing them to build up hundreds of feet, wouldn't it mean no tectonic activity, and with no activity, what would prevent radiation stripping away an atmosphere and freezing the water on that planet? Would I face a similar problem?
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • I guess by "inhabitable", I mean the atmosphere would be composed of sufficiently hospitable elements and of a temperature and moisture range that would host plant life (though nothing as serious as large, woody trees in "the wild") out in the open, and humans would not find it very difficult to construct settlements on the planet. The issue of Europa in a watery sense means the whole surface would need to be watery. Maybe floating islands would be a better place for humans to live on this planet?
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • nothing, a cold planet is dead and the atmosphere is getting stripped. The water planet is intersteler is a different story and was inhabitable as an example of hyper erosion.
        – anon
        5 hours ago












      up vote
      2
      down vote










      up vote
      2
      down vote









      This is actually a more thought provoking question than it seems at face value. You are not overthinking things and if anything by overthinking it you make it worth exploring.



      Though the first challenge is the ambiguity in the usage of habitable. Starting with Europa, it potentially meets all the qualifications. I believe Europa's surface meets the shape requirements. As for habitability. Scientists believe that beneath the ice there is likely lots of liquid water with the possibility for life. If that is the case that then could be habitable with undersea colonies. Kinda like Rapture.



      So Europa or a similar setup potentially passes the test Also extends to water worlds



      If you meant more conventional habitability with land then that is much more difficult. NO It shouldn't be possible. To better understand tectonics imagine a balloon deflating. when it reaches a certain size you begin to see ripples and sag marks as the material contracts with no where to go but bulge. This is similar to what happens as a planets core cools. The rock contracts resulting in mountains forming. Even on Mars this process is still happening.



      Point is a planet would have to be completely cold for tectonics to stop. Therefore it would be inhabitable.



      The other way to achieve this and be geologically active would be to have hyper erosion. The chemistry and energy needed to make this happen would be in-hospitable for non microbial life.






      share|improve this answer












      This is actually a more thought provoking question than it seems at face value. You are not overthinking things and if anything by overthinking it you make it worth exploring.



      Though the first challenge is the ambiguity in the usage of habitable. Starting with Europa, it potentially meets all the qualifications. I believe Europa's surface meets the shape requirements. As for habitability. Scientists believe that beneath the ice there is likely lots of liquid water with the possibility for life. If that is the case that then could be habitable with undersea colonies. Kinda like Rapture.



      So Europa or a similar setup potentially passes the test Also extends to water worlds



      If you meant more conventional habitability with land then that is much more difficult. NO It shouldn't be possible. To better understand tectonics imagine a balloon deflating. when it reaches a certain size you begin to see ripples and sag marks as the material contracts with no where to go but bulge. This is similar to what happens as a planets core cools. The rock contracts resulting in mountains forming. Even on Mars this process is still happening.



      Point is a planet would have to be completely cold for tectonics to stop. Therefore it would be inhabitable.



      The other way to achieve this and be geologically active would be to have hyper erosion. The chemistry and energy needed to make this happen would be in-hospitable for non microbial life.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 5 hours ago









      anon

      9,1271152




      9,1271152







      • 1




        Thanks for seeing why I think it is a challenging issue. It makes me think of that watery planet in Interstellar. For vast swathes of flat land to be covered in just a relatively thin layer of water with no land to break up waves allowing them to build up hundreds of feet, wouldn't it mean no tectonic activity, and with no activity, what would prevent radiation stripping away an atmosphere and freezing the water on that planet? Would I face a similar problem?
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • I guess by "inhabitable", I mean the atmosphere would be composed of sufficiently hospitable elements and of a temperature and moisture range that would host plant life (though nothing as serious as large, woody trees in "the wild") out in the open, and humans would not find it very difficult to construct settlements on the planet. The issue of Europa in a watery sense means the whole surface would need to be watery. Maybe floating islands would be a better place for humans to live on this planet?
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • nothing, a cold planet is dead and the atmosphere is getting stripped. The water planet is intersteler is a different story and was inhabitable as an example of hyper erosion.
        – anon
        5 hours ago












      • 1




        Thanks for seeing why I think it is a challenging issue. It makes me think of that watery planet in Interstellar. For vast swathes of flat land to be covered in just a relatively thin layer of water with no land to break up waves allowing them to build up hundreds of feet, wouldn't it mean no tectonic activity, and with no activity, what would prevent radiation stripping away an atmosphere and freezing the water on that planet? Would I face a similar problem?
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • I guess by "inhabitable", I mean the atmosphere would be composed of sufficiently hospitable elements and of a temperature and moisture range that would host plant life (though nothing as serious as large, woody trees in "the wild") out in the open, and humans would not find it very difficult to construct settlements on the planet. The issue of Europa in a watery sense means the whole surface would need to be watery. Maybe floating islands would be a better place for humans to live on this planet?
        – Jeremy Hunter
        5 hours ago










      • nothing, a cold planet is dead and the atmosphere is getting stripped. The water planet is intersteler is a different story and was inhabitable as an example of hyper erosion.
        – anon
        5 hours ago







      1




      1




      Thanks for seeing why I think it is a challenging issue. It makes me think of that watery planet in Interstellar. For vast swathes of flat land to be covered in just a relatively thin layer of water with no land to break up waves allowing them to build up hundreds of feet, wouldn't it mean no tectonic activity, and with no activity, what would prevent radiation stripping away an atmosphere and freezing the water on that planet? Would I face a similar problem?
      – Jeremy Hunter
      5 hours ago




      Thanks for seeing why I think it is a challenging issue. It makes me think of that watery planet in Interstellar. For vast swathes of flat land to be covered in just a relatively thin layer of water with no land to break up waves allowing them to build up hundreds of feet, wouldn't it mean no tectonic activity, and with no activity, what would prevent radiation stripping away an atmosphere and freezing the water on that planet? Would I face a similar problem?
      – Jeremy Hunter
      5 hours ago












      I guess by "inhabitable", I mean the atmosphere would be composed of sufficiently hospitable elements and of a temperature and moisture range that would host plant life (though nothing as serious as large, woody trees in "the wild") out in the open, and humans would not find it very difficult to construct settlements on the planet. The issue of Europa in a watery sense means the whole surface would need to be watery. Maybe floating islands would be a better place for humans to live on this planet?
      – Jeremy Hunter
      5 hours ago




      I guess by "inhabitable", I mean the atmosphere would be composed of sufficiently hospitable elements and of a temperature and moisture range that would host plant life (though nothing as serious as large, woody trees in "the wild") out in the open, and humans would not find it very difficult to construct settlements on the planet. The issue of Europa in a watery sense means the whole surface would need to be watery. Maybe floating islands would be a better place for humans to live on this planet?
      – Jeremy Hunter
      5 hours ago












      nothing, a cold planet is dead and the atmosphere is getting stripped. The water planet is intersteler is a different story and was inhabitable as an example of hyper erosion.
      – anon
      5 hours ago




      nothing, a cold planet is dead and the atmosphere is getting stripped. The water planet is intersteler is a different story and was inhabitable as an example of hyper erosion.
      – anon
      5 hours ago










      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Earth was like this sometime in the Archean Eon



      Life started in the early Archean (Earth was habitable in the Archean).



      The first continents formed in the Archean. Mountains are caused by two continents colliding or rubbing together.



      Some continent had to be the first continent. So there was a time when Earth was habitable but couldn't make a mountain because it didn't have two continents to rub together.






      share|improve this answer




















      • See I thought about this too, but you have to realize that what the Archean is thought to look like is incredibly theoretical at the moment. Much of the geologic record from this time has been lost which is part of the ambiguity. Also if you consider the fact that this time must have been plagued with rampant volcanos then theres no way it can meet the requirements
        – anon
        4 hours ago














      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Earth was like this sometime in the Archean Eon



      Life started in the early Archean (Earth was habitable in the Archean).



      The first continents formed in the Archean. Mountains are caused by two continents colliding or rubbing together.



      Some continent had to be the first continent. So there was a time when Earth was habitable but couldn't make a mountain because it didn't have two continents to rub together.






      share|improve this answer




















      • See I thought about this too, but you have to realize that what the Archean is thought to look like is incredibly theoretical at the moment. Much of the geologic record from this time has been lost which is part of the ambiguity. Also if you consider the fact that this time must have been plagued with rampant volcanos then theres no way it can meet the requirements
        – anon
        4 hours ago












      up vote
      0
      down vote










      up vote
      0
      down vote









      Earth was like this sometime in the Archean Eon



      Life started in the early Archean (Earth was habitable in the Archean).



      The first continents formed in the Archean. Mountains are caused by two continents colliding or rubbing together.



      Some continent had to be the first continent. So there was a time when Earth was habitable but couldn't make a mountain because it didn't have two continents to rub together.






      share|improve this answer












      Earth was like this sometime in the Archean Eon



      Life started in the early Archean (Earth was habitable in the Archean).



      The first continents formed in the Archean. Mountains are caused by two continents colliding or rubbing together.



      Some continent had to be the first continent. So there was a time when Earth was habitable but couldn't make a mountain because it didn't have two continents to rub together.







      share|improve this answer












      share|improve this answer



      share|improve this answer










      answered 5 hours ago









      Jared K

      3,2581523




      3,2581523











      • See I thought about this too, but you have to realize that what the Archean is thought to look like is incredibly theoretical at the moment. Much of the geologic record from this time has been lost which is part of the ambiguity. Also if you consider the fact that this time must have been plagued with rampant volcanos then theres no way it can meet the requirements
        – anon
        4 hours ago
















      • See I thought about this too, but you have to realize that what the Archean is thought to look like is incredibly theoretical at the moment. Much of the geologic record from this time has been lost which is part of the ambiguity. Also if you consider the fact that this time must have been plagued with rampant volcanos then theres no way it can meet the requirements
        – anon
        4 hours ago















      See I thought about this too, but you have to realize that what the Archean is thought to look like is incredibly theoretical at the moment. Much of the geologic record from this time has been lost which is part of the ambiguity. Also if you consider the fact that this time must have been plagued with rampant volcanos then theres no way it can meet the requirements
      – anon
      4 hours ago




      See I thought about this too, but you have to realize that what the Archean is thought to look like is incredibly theoretical at the moment. Much of the geologic record from this time has been lost which is part of the ambiguity. Also if you consider the fact that this time must have been plagued with rampant volcanos then theres no way it can meet the requirements
      – anon
      4 hours ago










      up vote
      0
      down vote













      Less likely,but not improbable. And habitable for what? Life is not all about humans. Meaby you have more or less flat continent and all that not-so-common activity is down below in your oceans. Harsher weather is not something you can not overcome and adapt to.
      If you fear meteors better to have less them in your solar system and have good pal gas giant collecting them for you.






      share|improve this answer








      New contributor




      Artemijs Danilovs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
      Check out our Code of Conduct.





















        up vote
        0
        down vote













        Less likely,but not improbable. And habitable for what? Life is not all about humans. Meaby you have more or less flat continent and all that not-so-common activity is down below in your oceans. Harsher weather is not something you can not overcome and adapt to.
        If you fear meteors better to have less them in your solar system and have good pal gas giant collecting them for you.






        share|improve this answer








        New contributor




        Artemijs Danilovs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
        Check out our Code of Conduct.



















          up vote
          0
          down vote










          up vote
          0
          down vote









          Less likely,but not improbable. And habitable for what? Life is not all about humans. Meaby you have more or less flat continent and all that not-so-common activity is down below in your oceans. Harsher weather is not something you can not overcome and adapt to.
          If you fear meteors better to have less them in your solar system and have good pal gas giant collecting them for you.






          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Artemijs Danilovs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          Less likely,but not improbable. And habitable for what? Life is not all about humans. Meaby you have more or less flat continent and all that not-so-common activity is down below in your oceans. Harsher weather is not something you can not overcome and adapt to.
          If you fear meteors better to have less them in your solar system and have good pal gas giant collecting them for you.







          share|improve this answer








          New contributor




          Artemijs Danilovs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer






          New contributor




          Artemijs Danilovs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.









          answered 4 hours ago









          Artemijs Danilovs

          312




          312




          New contributor




          Artemijs Danilovs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.





          New contributor





          Artemijs Danilovs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.






          Artemijs Danilovs is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
          Check out our Code of Conduct.




















              up vote
              -1
              down vote













              An Iron planet they have no plate tectonics or strong magnetic field as they cool rapidly after formation. This leaves you with a pretty barren planet though.






              share|improve this answer








              New contributor




              Neo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
              Check out our Code of Conduct.





















                up vote
                -1
                down vote













                An Iron planet they have no plate tectonics or strong magnetic field as they cool rapidly after formation. This leaves you with a pretty barren planet though.






                share|improve this answer








                New contributor




                Neo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                Check out our Code of Conduct.



















                  up vote
                  -1
                  down vote










                  up vote
                  -1
                  down vote









                  An Iron planet they have no plate tectonics or strong magnetic field as they cool rapidly after formation. This leaves you with a pretty barren planet though.






                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Neo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  An Iron planet they have no plate tectonics or strong magnetic field as they cool rapidly after formation. This leaves you with a pretty barren planet though.







                  share|improve this answer








                  New contributor




                  Neo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  share|improve this answer



                  share|improve this answer






                  New contributor




                  Neo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.









                  answered 4 hours ago









                  Neo

                  72




                  72




                  New contributor




                  Neo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.





                  New contributor





                  Neo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.






                  Neo is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
                  Check out our Code of Conduct.




















                      Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.









                       

                      draft saved


                      draft discarded


















                      Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.












                      Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.











                      Jeremy Hunter is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.













                       


                      draft saved


                      draft discarded














                      StackExchange.ready(
                      function ()
                      StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fworldbuilding.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f129724%2fa-world-without-mountains%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                      );

                      Post as a guest













































































                      Popular posts from this blog

                      How to check contact read email or not when send email to Individual?

                      Displaying single band from multi-band raster using QGIS

                      How many registers does an x86_64 CPU actually have?