According to the established concept, a geosyncline is an elongated zone of the earth's crust of intense movement, which manifests itself first in the subsidence and accumulation of a large thickness of sedimentary rocks, and later in an uplift, which is accompanied by the formation of folded mountain structures. During folding, earthquakes and volcanic activity are especially intense. 

The answers to the riddles, perhaps, in the development of the geosyncline? 

If low places are formed, and even in the aquatic environment, then it becomes clear about precipitation. But what constitutes the process of deflection and why does it arise - the main task on the way to the denouement about the nature of mountains and the mechanism of their formation has not yet been solved.

Suppose that after the melting of the surface layer of the Earth, the cooling of the substance began, which gave rise to the origin of the planetary crust. This means that the surface should be smooth without any mountain structures and hills.

That the Earth at one time underwent a melting stage, the opinions of many scientists coincide. But there are also many opponents.

What are the reasons that can cause the sinking of a land area, moreover, rather large in size, tens of kilometers in width and hundreds in length? (For example, these can be geosynclinal regions such as the Tien Shan, Altai-Sayan, Antilles-Caribbean, or even geosynclinal belts.)

Is it mechanical deformation under its own weight or something else? It is very difficult to judge the processes that took place at the initial stage of the planet's development. It is easier to understand the essence of such, if we turn to the same processes that are currently taking place. Let us turn to facts, not thoughts about them, for help.

It's easy to say so. But it is not easy to comprehend on a serious basis the truth of the phenomenon that took place. The term "sinking" entered the lexicon as a completely and 100% understandable word, like the word "wind", the comprehensive meaning of which is fully understood.

Do we understand the truth of the word "sinking" of the earth's crust, so that we can use it with the same correctness in solving the still unresolved issues related to this phenomenon? No, we don't understand. We accept this word mechanically, borrowed lightly from the experience of life. And we believe this, we believe, as we do to ourselves. And since we believe, then we do not even have any doubts about its reliability and truthfulness.

And this concept should have been questioned for a long time, pondered and come to a firm conclusion: does the semantics of the word correspond to the phenomenon that actually happened or not? Or maybe the phenomenon that we call sinking should be replaced by a completely different term, more consistent with material movement? But then how do not say, but on the site of the once former plain formed the deepest depression. This is already a fact, not a fabulousness, so you cannot give up on this and cannot do without a concept of it. And if so, then an appropriate name is required.

The existing name does not fit in any way, for the term "sinking" does not in any way correspond to the idea of ​​unshakably acquired experience. In place of this, something more appropriate should be thought of.

None of the naturalists have yet proved that at the bottom of a subsided land area, he found identical rocks identical to them with the rocks surrounding this place. And he will never prove this, even if he cleared all the depressions of the globe from the sedimentary cover. After all, the concept of "sinking" of any part of the earth's crust paints in our imagination a very real picture: a flat area or so suddenly, for reasons unknown to us, retaining its previous position around the circumference, begins to bend in the central part. Everything that was there begins to sink along with the soil. The deepening is getting lower and lower. Slow or fast, it doesn't matter. And we know that on the globe there are a lot of huge areas where subsidence took place and where many kilometers of sedimentary rocks have accumulated. There are many large ones, and even more small ones.

And so, according to our established ideas, the imagination can paint in the mind an eerie picture of this phenomenon. It's no joke to imagine a land area sinking to a depth of 12,000 meters, as is the case in the Caspian lowland. If this subsidence occurred somewhere in the Carboniferous period, then one can even hope that some remains of fauna or flora should remain at the bottom there. After all, there are imprints of leaves in stone rocks, but miners find charred trunks of ancient ferns.

Our imaginations allow us to fantasize, but there is not one milligram of benefit in searching for the truth. There is no benefit here, but only harm and deliberately erected barriers to the knowledge of the truth. A wrong start on a wrong basis never leads to truth. Therefore, even the imaginary picture of the sinking process does not correspond to reality in any way. Even if the dense forests surrounded the Caspian Sea from the north and north-east, that is, in the place where the modern lowland. But they gave way to the lowlands and were in no way absorbed by it.

There are similar depressions even now with the existence of a very observant creature, but they are inaccessible to the human eye - at the bottom of the oceans.

So, the processes that have shaped the appearance of our planet since the inception of the crust have not disappeared anywhere. Everything has its time. The conditions for making up the earth's crust have changed, and mountain building processes have been corrected. And so the principle is the same, only in the "sea", more precisely oceanic, version. And what is happening on the continents are only reduced copies of what happened in past eras. And in order to understand the past in more detail, or at least a little look into the future of the planet, you need to consider more key moments from the life of the Earth. Perhaps, this too, is the key to unraveling the location of useful deposits on the planet.

Translated from Планета Земля очима дилетанта 

(3 of 3)