Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it

You're going to have to give it all again if you want me to know what you're talking about. I've only seen one viewpoint against mine, and that's the idea the layers deposited in the sloped and tilted position rather than deforming later. "Belief" was being used in the perfectly ordinary everyday sense of believing something true. I could make a snarky remark but I'm the only one who ever gets "moderated" for those, you never do. No I am not saying that, I'm saying you'll never get a normal even layer that way, such as those seen here and especially in long sequences such as are visible from a distance in the Grand Canyon. That is NOT how sloping layers are formed, they are laid down horizontally and then deformed. And again you haven't proved it.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixed 1 quote box. It was the second one down, one of the quote box in quote box. Hope I got it right.

What I think I said was that they must have stretched that small distance, the rock being soft.

Rock can stretch and rock can compress or compact, when still soft enough.

It wouldn't have increased its volume, if you're talking about quantity of sediment. But stretching WOULD increase its volume in the sense of absolute measurements, the way beating egg whites or adding yeast to bread dough increases volume.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, it does give quite a different appearance. Which I believe I noted in my previous post. Yes, there is certainly a general tilt to the whole formation that is not at all apparent on the other view. However, there is still a particular sagging on the left as the sandstone climbs up onto the gneiss, much less pronounced than it is in the other image, but not just part of the general tilt. A definite curve or bend. The appearance of tilt on the left in the layer or two above the "sag" can't be seen from this perspective but it couldn't disappear altogether, must be merely even less pronounced than it appears in the other view. So it still remains true that there is a separate but very slight tilt on the left that isn't just part of the overall tilt.Here's the left side of the street view with the layer marked to show that there is still a recognizable sag though much less steep. Wiggly line isn't intentional. Original horizontality is a principle more than something that should need to be proved, but I do nevertheless intend to try to construct some experiments to address all the different claims. But not to lose the point of the distinction: if the layers deposited horizontally and then deformed, that suggests that the deformation was caused by the deformation of the gneiss over which they now lie and to which they appear to be conformed in basic shape. This would be evidence that they were already in place when that deformation occurred, which is the whole point of my argument that there was no appreciable time gap between the two rocks. If, however, they were deposited on top of the already-deformed gneiss, conforming to its contours as seen, that would support the idea of pre-existing gneiss already eroded long before the deposition of the sandstone. I do feel it is necessary to repeat this because otherwise the whole reason for the dispute could get lost. Sorry if it is in the category of what you said I can't repeat. This is not meant as an argument, merely a statement of what the argument is about because otherwise it can all get lost and confused. I assume this refers to the vertical tilt or incline from top to bottom? Not sure what the significance of this is. Noted. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

A little content would be helpful. I have to guess: You don't think it makes sense to talk about an increase in rock volume unless there's actually more sediment added? Granted my analogies aren't that great but stretching versus compaction ought to make the point that volume can increase or decrease simply mechanically.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, rock, including sandstone, does stretch: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lineation_(geology)But if that isn't the cause of the greater volume between contacts, then it must be that the narrower part to the right was formed by compaction. I'm OK with either explanation. Edited by Admin, : Fix link.

I agree. You are right.

I didn't say the sagged layers became thicker as they sagged although I can see how someone could have read it that way. I was talking about the layers ABOVE the sagged area, where the contacts are so tight and yet tilt slightly from the horizontal lines to the right -- those aren't horizontal, we can see now from the street view, but there is nevertheless a slight tilt down from those in the contacts on the left just above the sagged area.I was asked how the space between the contacts could be larger,or that's how I heard it, and I just tossed off the thought that since the rocks were still soft they must have stretched in that area. He then kept insisting it would involve volume so I said OK then the volume must have expanded that small amount, not really thinking. Eventually I took that back. But it was never about anything other than the couple of layers above the sagged area, to explain how there could be such tight contacts there if the layers are wider than those to the right. The answer I'd give now to explain the difference is that the layers to the right must have thinned.No, I probably wouldn't have said the left side sags if I had only the street view to go by. I might still have argued for original horizontality though. But since it looks like a sag on the other view and can still be identified somewhat on the street view, I'll still try to make the case. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The odd thing is I never even noticed that jog until you "reminded" me of it. Then I said there couldn't be any jog there at all. Who drew that line originally? I missed it at the time.

I spoke too soon, that's all. Please see my explanation to Percy in 1675.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Something like that, yes. There has to be an explanation for the difference in width, either expansion or compaction, and compaction appears to be the best explanation.But I never said the straight tight contacts indicated by the orange lines "sagged," that word I only applied to the layers below. I used the term "slight tilt" for those above.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

When I drew the line to indicate the sag I was looking at a much bigger closeup picture where the curve is more apparent. I don't know why only one layer seemed to show up whereas at the greater distance I identified two.yes of course it makes a difference to see a different perspective. if snapdragon gets some good shots maybe it will make enough of a difference to give up the whole argument.I used "eroded" for the gneiss as the statement of the conventionalview that I'm arguing against. "Deformed" refers to its being higher in one place than the other but that concerns the idea that it was pushed up into the sandstone, which I still have to give better evidence for according to you although I think I've given good evidence already.HOW flat is the surface eroded by meanders? They leave raised areas at the edges of their sharp turns, don't they? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Evidence: layers thinner in one place, thicker in another place.

Unless somebody comes up with a new example that looks interesting, or wants to insist that I address a particular issue, assuming I'm in a position to do that, I don't see any point in my continuing on this thread until I'm able to do the experiments with sand in a couple of months.