The theory of lifting

Some proponents of the theory does not attributed any significant role accumulation and explained the origin of volcanic mountains lift, while others, eg. Humboldt in his "Cosmos", did not share such extreme views and the possibility of formation of the cones by a single accumulation. Not to mention the particulars, are difficult to explain lift, enough to indicate that, in direct contradiction to the parsing theory is the following fact: almost all ring shafts consist exclusively of volcanic rocks, whereas in the formation of the crater uplift could participate limestones, shales, sandstones to the same extent as lavas and tuffs. This caused the followers of the theory to assume that in the first period of cooling of the earth, when there were no mountains, primeval crust covered with cracks through which resulted basalts, trachytes, and others related to them breed in the form of large sheets. The latter were raised by the volcanic crater and the burning mountains. But this assumption only explains the presence of volcanic rocks in the crater, but not limited to their predominance, in any case, would have to exist a sharp boundary between the initial components of a raised ring and the latest volcanic products, but how wonderful it proved Gartun, this boundary is actually does not exist. The best argument in favor of the theory of lifting felt inclined position of many lava sheets and beds, as well as the steepness of some volcanic cones, exceeding the natural angle of granular materials, special emphasis was placed heavily tilted lava flows, since it was assumed that the liquid magma can not resist and harden on the steep slopes. Elie de Beaumont drew attention to this fact and tried to prove that even at an inclination of 4 ° lava can not be kept and that only in very exceptional cases, it freezes at an inclination of 6 °. But the basis of all these arguments lay a profound mistake: the human eye usually exaggerates the steepness of slopes, and in most figures marked the height of the mountains is not true. Claiming that the cones of volcanoes because of its steepness could not be formed through the accumulation, the researchers were based on measurements made by them in the figures of South American volcanoes. Accurate data collected in recent years, showed that the measurements were not true; Vesuvius to the slopes in the 31 ° belongs already to the number of very steep cones, and such mountains as Gunung Sumbing on Kamchatka with a slope of 38 ° are rare exceptions; volcanoes with an inclination of 40 ° is not known. With regard to the imaginary failure to freeze the lava flows on steep slopes, the views Elie de Beaumont directly refuted by direct observations. Even in historical times thrown out by volcanoes is not enough of these lava flows, which are frozen, despite their strong inclination. In the vicinity of Etna Lyayell watched a number of such cases. If the mountain-shaped cones and bells occurred as a result of raising the horizontal wood, then they would be accompanied by cracks. Proponents of this theory tried in certain cases to find them, but to no avail. However, many volcanoes are cone-shaped island of Java are covered with cracks radiating in all directions in the form of rays, similar phenomena Gohshtetter observed in New Zealand at Mount Egmont, and in some other places. But if these cracks occur due to lifting, then they would have to grow up. The absence of this feature makes ascribe their origins action flowing from the top of the water. The same should be said about the deep ravines and canyons on the outer slopes of the volcano, called the barranco and particularly well developed in the Canary Islands, then we dwell on this phenomenon, but now we note that it has nothing to do with the phenomena of uplift.