Mount Everest

Fig.1.  Mr George Everest, the first Surveyor General of India (viewed from the Tibetan side)  - with his forlorn little stone previously known as Peak XV, which  is trying to tell the world its strata are not crumpled by plate collision, as plate tectonic gurus say it is, ...but are in fact flat - as are all the other mountains of the high Himalaya.... (courtesy of   The Five Mile Press: Stefano Ardito, 'History of the Great Mountaineering Adventures')

 

The strata of the highest mountain belt in the world are not crumpled, but flat.  Mount Everest and K2, the two representative highest mountains of the Himalayan front ranges closest to the battering ram of the Indian plate are uncrumpled whilst the Tibetan Plateau which lies behind them is not flat but full of of sag folds and Basin-and-Range - type faults.  Plate tectonics offers no explanation for this bizarre difference in behaviour (crumpling versus regional [flat] uplift/ extension) other than the analogy of crashing a car at ninety miles an hour:-

"Colliding crustal plates can form mountains and plateaus. The squished crust  buckles like the hood of a car in a collision. Mountains form nearby the collision while planar uplifted areas form farther away from the collision source. An example of this is found on the Mongolian Plateau in Asia. As India collided with Asia, the Himalayan Mountains were buckled and uplifted like the hood of a crashed car. Areas further from the collision were uplifted, but there was no accompanying  deformation, resulting in the Mongolian Plateau."

However it is a matter of simple observation that the closest bit to the crash site (which is supposed to buckle) is actually not buckled at all, ...and the far-away region just gets uplifted. - instead of just  less crumpled.

It's not true of course that fragments of crust are racing about the planet like cars on a racetrack, and crashing, despite plate tectonics' analogy.   In fact it's not even true that India has moved away from the spreading ridge to collide with Asia  -  it is the ridge that has grown away from India!.     Ridges move away from the continents, and no, it is not simply a question of relative movement,   India in fact has stayed put.   What IS moving is the collapsing edifice of the mountain belt of the Himalyas over India.   Not only is it being worn down by erosion at a terrific rate (because relatively speaking - relative to seal level that is - it is far too high to be up there at all), but it is collapsing as well,  out and over the marginal cratons;  | link |   And the evidence for that collapse lies in all the thrusts and folds at its base.   Plate tectonics regards these thrust-and-fold elements as reflecting continental collision, but it is clear from considerations of scale and symmetry, and the extensional basin in between (Persian Gulf and Ganges Basin)  that they simply reflect collapse of the mountainous edifice consistent with the picture presented on this site..

"Crumpling of the crust to give mountains" is codswallop, and the most mountainous uplifts closest to the 'battering ram' of India show there's none.  The strata making up mountains - not just here, but elsewhere in the world, are as flat as a tack.   To say that they are crumpled  is simply a figment fabricated to meet the requirements of plate tectonics' flawed model of subduction and convection and a bald misrepresentation of the facts .  To maintain 'crumpling' as the mechanism of mountain building compounds plate tectonics as JUNK SCIENCE of the first order concocted to prop up fundamental assumptions of plate collision that simply cannot be justified.   Not only do the mountains show there is no crumpling according to the model of plate tectonics, but India is not colliding with Asia, any more than the African continent is colliding with Europe.   It's a furphy, like all the others, put around by true believers who refuse to acknowledge or regard the geological evidence, who put their faith in the veracity of their own model and see the geological evidence as something to be further researched to fit it.  Topsy turvey?  That's plate tectonics.

Do we mean to say then that educators are all of them just oblivious to the facts?  Or deliberately misleading us?   Well obviously they're not deliberately misleading us, it's just that they don't have the time to go mountaineering and taking pictures like the one above ( or below), when they can read the edicts handed down by the Popes of Plate Tectonics, who are paid to propagate myths and connive to uphold their obvious fallacies as valid topics for 'research', using  your money.   Anything that is revealed 'free' - like this - is regarded as codswallop without the peer-review imprimatura of the Popes.  It's up to you, the reader to judge using the evidence of your own eyes.  Google up the terms < mountains crumple crust>  and see what nonsense  is said about 'colliding' plates.   And then think about what this site is saying -  namely that there are no colliding plates making mountains.   There is just the Pangaean crust breaking open  to expose the mantle in gigantic scars, in a 'what-you-see-is-what-you-get' Earth that is getting bigger, and plate tectonics, with its fundamental 'denying-the-evidence-of-its-own-eyes' assumption of subduction v. overriding (hence convection) that it can't.  (And no, subduction and overriding are not the same thing.)   Plate tectonics is a great, big con,  predicated on an erroneous assumption.