The interpretation compiled by pundits looks strange. "... The initial material for the formation of rocks was the products of volcanic eruption - ash, slag, lava. Redeposited by water, ice or wind, they formed the layers of the original sedimentary strata." How to comprehend these collected words in two sentences? Perhaps it is not worth choosing words to characterize their content. Moreover, such a scientific substantiation is not the first time. But even if we proceed from such an "explanation", do mountain structures consist of ash, slag? The material composition of rocks is different.

The original rock material remained unchanged

If we analyze in detail, observing the possibilities of reality, then the mechanism of the mountain-building process will look like this: tectonic movements inside the planet lead to a volcanic eruption, the product of which is ash, slag, lava. Erupted types of matter are inherently fluid, that is, those that do not accumulate in a limited area. Let the slag, who knows what he was and what he was, could even accumulate in the form of rocks. But ash and lava could not have accumulated on the minimum area with the maximum height. In any case, such an eruption could have the appearance of a plateau with a relatively flat surface, but not with a summit. How can this be called a mountain structure? The initial material of any mountain structure in plain sight. From what material this structure began to form, this has remained to this day.
As you can see, in such a completely inconspicuous sentence, a rather incorrect idea is formulated and, moreover, seductive. Many can become a supporter of this opinion: after all, no one saw this, and who will prove that it is wrong? What was the initial material from which not structures were formed, but the substance for structures, no one knows yet. Perhaps the modern substance of the mountain structure was the same to the formation of the structure itself, but only in a different state, in a different location, but in no case ash or slag. After all, ash and slag will never be able by themselves to go into hard, dense rock. Or maybe this substance was in some phase unknown to us before the orogeny process. But again, not in the form of ash or slag. The issue of mountain building remains a mystery to science to this day, although many hypotheses and various assumptions have been created. Even if there was a redeposition of such ash and slag, they would remain so to this day. Are there any ash or slag layering found anywhere on the vast plains?
The question of lithology is also itself not properly clarified and is as mysterious as the mountain-building process. Although a fairly clear idea of the formation of sedimentary rocks has taken root, it is very easy to dispel such an idea if only a few questions about the essence of the layers themselves are raised.

The role of tectonic movements in mountain building processes

But regarding tectonics, it is well recognized, but only superfluous is attributed to it. For example. "Tectonic uplifts and subsidence cause the circulation of mineral matter in the tectonosphere, a complete periodic change in its qualitative composition." Can oscillating movements and their mechanical consequences lead to the fact that the substance of the day's surface falls to a depth of several kilometers over an area of ​​hundreds and thousands of square kilometers? How can we understand the complete periodic change in its qualitative composition? Can granite after one earthquake turn into some other completely different rock from the previous one? There are many such examples.
If a substance of a completely different mineralogical composition was found in a deep fault between two granite blocks, this does not mean that in this place, due to movements, a change in the qualitative composition of the granite itself took place. It remained the same as it was before the time of tectonic movements. The appearance of new matter in the fault is already a matter of the mantle and has nothing to do with the surrounding rocks that were formed earlier.
It is very correctly noted that ascending movements carry geological layers from the bowels of the Earth to its surface, heap up high mountains. But is such a mechanism completely deliberate? Here, tectonic movements are not the primary cause of the appearance of geological layers or mountain structures. Tectonic movements are just a consequence of those causal processes occurring in the bowels of the planet, generate tectonic movements, give birth to geological layers.
The desire to dwell on such a concept. “On the surface, all rocks are weathered, crushed, turned into weathering crust. ... a complete qualitative transformation of rocks occurs. clay, etc., no longer similar to the mineral substance from which they were formed. "
Somewhat correct and unquestioning, but something completely wrong. There are no eternally permanent mineral formations. Some of them are destroyed faster, others slower. But if we take it on a global scale, the weathering process takes a rather meager percentage. The weathering crust is very visible, and it is found mainly on the surface of the day. True, a qualitative transformation is taking place here. But again, this is a rather insignificant amount of matter, as such, compared to the total mass of sedimentary rocks on the entire planet.
The fact of the matter is that science does not know the natural origin of sedimentary rocks, therefore they are attributed to the processes of weathering.
Neither sand nor clay constituted, even in the most ancient time of the birth of the earth's crust, any rock from which they could have formed. We see the named materials in the first-born state in the original.

The earth's crust does not go deep into the bowels of the planet and does not experience metamorphism there

In no places where the earth's crust subsided and no rocks did they go deep into the bowels and did not experience new changes in composition - metamorphism. Metamorphism is also a virgin mystery, although it was taken for a very simple intelligibility. And everything here goes like a ladder. A fabricated solution to a single riddle fabricates a similar one. If the true origin of the limestone was known, the concept of "metamorphism" would not have originated. Confirmation of the wrong idea is the chemical composition of the paired minerals. But this does not mean the actual situation, as it seems.
All this can be known only when the very mechanism of the formation and formation of such mineral formations is disclosed. There are many factors of deception here that perpetuate false representations. Moreover, even practical research in artificial conditions can show what in reality did not exist in nature.
No. Acid secondary magma does not and cannot form in geosynclines. It is only just the place of its manifestation.
The demarcation of basalt from granite took place even when they originated and formed. They have remained so to this day, and no transitions, especially already in the Quaternary period, did not occur.
If such a transition process actually took place (without a certain regularity, such a process cannot proceed), then such a case could very easily be detected in the over-basalt layer of the oceanic crust. Moreover, there the granite layer would be much thinner than on the continents. After all, areas of the oceanic crust are different in their age: there are young and much older. And if the basalt granitization took place, then, first of all, the granite cover would be found in the oldest areas. Is this revealed? There, not only granite, but also basalt in some places barely makes ends meet.

Translated from Горотворчі процеси під час зародження земної кори