According to the dialectic of nature, nothing is eternal and permanent. Even F. Engels (1820-1895) argued that there is an eternal circulation of matter in the Universe. According to him, the eternal cycle in which matter moves occurs during such huge periods of time that cannot even be measured by earthly years. In this eternal cycle of matter, many suns and lands arise and die.
The earth develops according to the laws of dialectics
Separate, concrete forms of existence of matter, whether small particles, or gigantic celestial bodies, all the same pass, temporary. Matter itself - mobile, changeable - exists forever.
What is our planet like? The Earth is a grain of sand in the infinite space of the Universe, of which there are countless, as a product of material education. If we still do not know about many things, this does not mean that we should not adhere to the truth - the principle of the only materiality of the world. The processes of material transformations that take place on our planet are inherent in all other similar material education.
Hence the conclusion: we must consider certain phenomena occurring on our planet in accordance with the laws of the dialectics of nature. This means that our planet also has the beginning of its life path.
Since the question, at the moment, is about the nature of the earth's crust, research will be conducted within the framework of this.
In search of the original stronghold
If the continental crust has a different thickness, there must be a different time of its origin. What is the older platform or geosyncline? The question is clear: the geosyncline is younger, because it formed at the site of the deflection of the earth's crust.
What was the earth's crust at its initial origin, if the platforms, seemingly the most ancient parts of the earth's crust, do not correspond to our idea that the planet's surface was once molten. According to geophysical studies: “On the platforms, strong folding is observed only in deep folds of the crust - in the crystalline basement. But this folding is ancient. It was formed even when there was a geosyncline in the place of the platform. Then the earth's crust solidified, a platform was formed, and the calm occurrence of younger sedimentary rocks reflects an already inactive state. "
So what happens? The platform, as an area of the earth's crust, which should be a sample of the pristine type of hard shell, also experienced tectonic movements, which led to the formation of folding. Where to look for reference points, from where it would be possible to begin research on the further course of the development of the earth's crust.
The fact that the earth's crust at the initial stage of its development was in a molten state is indisputable.
The reference points should be those land areas in the platform area that have not experienced deformation and have a near-thickness granite layer, not taking into account deviations from the horizontal.
The next question, as a complementary factor in this study, should be resolved about the nature of mountain structures, about the mechanism of their formation. Until now, this issue has not been resolved. Many hypotheses and various assumptions arose around this question.
Individual mountains or entire mountain systems are material formations from the body of our planet.
Studies and studies of various areas of the surface of our planet show that the mountains on Earth are not the same in age. There are old and younger mountain structures. As it is already considered, and it is quite natural, that the mountains grow on the site of the former geosynclines in tectonic zones. On the surface of the earth's crust, there are, for example, folded zones. It is known that they were formed at different times. There are Caledonian folded zones, in which the layers collapsed into folds at the end of the Lower Paleozoic, that is, about 400 million years ago. These zones include the highlands of Scotland, the Northern Appalachians in the USA, the Sayan Mountains in Russia, etc. The later folded zones are called Hercynian or Variscian. In them, the layers crumpled into folds at the end of the Paleozoic era, that is, 200 million years ago. These include the South Appalachians, the Urals and a number of mountain ranges in China, etc. Finally, the youngest are the Alpine folded zones - the Alps, the Caucasus, the Himalayas, the Cordillera of North America, the Andes of South America, etc. 35 million years ago and even later. There are also very ancient, pre-Paleozoic folded zones.
The conclusion drawn by scientists is questionable: "After the formation of a folded zone, the movements of the earth's crust in its place usually fade and a platform is formed here." (But is it always? And exactly when? And about sedimentary rocks ...)
This chronology shows that the mountains did not arise at the same time. But what if you follow the path in the opposite direction? What would our planet look like? Would its surface be flat? Not. Taking into account the currently existing mountains and removing them, we will thus not achieve the smoothness of the surface, going back many millions of years ago. Currently, on the surface of the planet, we are areas that we call the crystalline basement. It is a relatively flat area covered with a sedimentary layer. Let's take this layer as well. It turns out that not everything is smooth under it either: there is also folding there, alternating with equal sections of the crystalline platform.
The question is, where could so much of the substance that we removed in order to get to the crust of initial origin come from? But both the sedimentary cover and the mountain chains are all superstructures on a solid foundation, all this is catching up from above, not from below. And if you take into account the still elevated plateaus, like areas of land flooded with lava? Let's start again with the question: what is a geosyncline? After all, is it the cause of the creation of mountains?
Translated from Планета Земля очима дилетанта
(2 of 3)
