Summations Only

The idea that your mystery inch is part of the Coconino is too wacky to consider, Percy, and I don't know why you don't see it. A contact line divides between different formations, it never occurs within a formation. There would have to be a separate contact line beneath your weird Inch to make it a separate formation unto itself to justify what you are saying, and the bottom edge of the inch is so irregular it isn't even a bedding plane let alone a contact. I don't get it but it's too bizarre to take seriously although it does seem you are completely convinced.

I really don't appreciate your analysis, HBD; are you really my "brother in Christ?". Here's an analysis of what you are doing:2 Peter 3:5 and 6:

I know you like your interpretation better than mine, but I continue to like mine better than yours.

Let me put it this way: there is no DEFINITIVE UNANSERABLE EVIDENCE on your side. I've given a plausible answer to it that happens to be consistent with the easily demonstrated fact that the strata were laid down before tectonic disturbance occurred in most places. Everywhere as a matter of fact. It's most telling in the GC/GS area but it's everywhere, and it requires something like my explanation of the Great unconformity to maintain the consistency.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I'm not really interested in all the secondary arguments about these things. I'm unfortunately particularly interested in your view of the Mystery Inch because it confirms what I've known for some time: that you don't know how to read the physical world, while you are always accusing me of that. Why would I want to get entangled in more discussion with you in that case?

I believe what I say. I've lost interest in trying to prove any of it to you or anyone at EvC, I merely give my view in answer to the usual accusations and leave it at that. Proving it, no, not worth it here..

You are asking too much of me. Half a dozen people raising a bunch of issues, some of you writing very long posts, no. Not to mention that they are often accusatory and sometimes totally off the wall.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No thank you, that's too much to ask. I have no reason to give that much attention to any of this.

I was just pondering this tilt/fault question while looking at the Supergroup in the cross section, and found myself wondering why the Supergroup split at all.The Supergroup is considered to have been the root of a mountain range before any of the Paleozoic strata were there, is that correct? So I was wondering why it would have been split into two sections like that. What I had in mind for reference was my memory of a trip to Canada where I was impressed with the Rockies in the area of Banff and Lake Louise and Waterton Lakes. What I remember reminds me of the tilt of the Supergroup, mountains built out of layers of rock of great lengths steeply tilted. I don't know the lengths but they seem to me to have been much longer than the blocks of Supergroup strata. If not then maybe the comparison isn't relevant. But if they are much longer then why weren't they split like the Supergroup?Unfortunately I wasn't able to find pictures of anything in the Canadian Rockies that fits my memory. This first one fits the length of the strata I had in mind, but not the steep diagonal -- it is about the same steepness as the Supergroup, though, just not as steep as I remember the mountains, and the second one is closer to the right steepness but it doesn't look anything like the layers upon layers that I remember. So maybe I dreamed those perfect Rockies.But it did make me wonder why the Supergroup, if it was the root of a mountain chain like the Rockies, would have been split. Presumably at the time they were just pushing up into thin air, nothing to restrict them in their tilt. So why wouldn't the strata have extended for a much greater distance soaring diagonally as I remember from my trip -- or dream. And why two more or less equal sections?Since they ARE split, that now adds to my view that the Paleozoic strata were all in place, their weight being a counterforce to the tectonic pressure on the lower rocks that restricted them all beneath the Tapeats, the lower force being just enough to create the Kaibab Uplift or rounded hill over the Supergroup, AND ALSO CAUSE THE SPLITTING OF THE SUPERGROUP AS IT MET THE UPPER RESISTANCE. Otherwise I don't see a reason for the split.So in this view the fault and the tilt were simultaneous, The Supergroup was being pushed up into the Tapeats and pushed horizontally under the Tapeats as well (the distance of a quarter mile, which is how far the quartzite boulder embedded in the Tapeats traveled from its origin in the Shinumo.) The forces split the Supergroup, its upper edges were eroded off, and the movement that caused the erosion stopped the fault line where the Supergroup met the Tapeats. That's why the "step" is simply removed and didn't penetrate into the upper strata.I like it. What do you think?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No I don't know what you mean by "formed by erosion." I was focused only on the form of the strata.

Erosion will do for my scenario, don't need shearing. But what do you mean by "at the base of the Tapeats?" IN the Tapeats or below it? Offhand "derived from the Supergroup and the Vishnu" sounds like a confirmation of my scenario. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, cut off by the unconformity. That's part of the evidence that the strata above were already there when these events occurred: the faulting, the tilting, the granite and Vishnu formation, the erosion etc, and that is evidence for the occurrence of the tectonic force in the "Precambrian" rocks after all the strata were in place. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Of course it is. I don't think the split would occur without resistance to the tilting, which is what fits my scenario so nicely. The whole block of strata would simply tilt up into the air without that, there wouldn't be any faulting or splitting. There is no upper resistance in the conventional interpretation, only in my scenario. And why would it have to "vary" anyway? If the Supergroup is tilted and pushed by the tectonic force up into the lower surface of the Tapeats with all the weight of the strata above it, that counterforce of the weight would put strain on the Supergroup, which I think accounts for the faulting and splitting which are simultaneous. That same resistance accounts for the eroding away of the upper corners of the Supergroup.The erosion itself implies the horizontal movement I keep saying must have occurred, though yes, the only actual evidence of the horizontal movement is the position of the quartzite boulder, but such movement would account for the way the fault line is cut off by the unconformity, meaning that cross cutting relationship that would show the strata were already there was prevented in this case.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That is correct. What's your point?

I have no idea what you mean. Surely the Rockies were formed by the upthrusting of the strata wherever the strata are the prominent feature. I'm sure there has been plenty of erosion as well, but what point are you making about this? Erosion didn't FORM the mountains, the upthrust rock did.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.