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

I'm sure you're right about that.

I'm sure you're right about that.

Please refer to my edits and explain.

Note in this diagram of the Kaibab Monocline that the thicknesses of the strata vary slightly along the length of a layer but do not accumulate more thickly on the horizontal parts.

I don't know if this is a significant issue, but I must stress the "this diagram" part. You're over-interpreting things - This is not intended as being a precise rendering of reality. Your thickness variations are probably, at most, some sloppiness in the document drafting.

Moose

I don't know if this is a significant issue, but I must stress the "this diagram" part. You're over-interpreting things - This is not intended as being a precise rendering of reality. Your thickness variations are probably, at most, some sloppiness in the document drafting.

The source of the diagram look like it is intended to be schematic. And I REALLY don't like the way they depicted the basement topography around the faults...

Having said that, it would not surprise me at all to have some thickening and thinning of the sedimentary layers above the basement crystalline rocks.

This reference:

http://sp.lyellcollection.org/content/169/1/23.abstract

... indicates, along with some others that I have found, that the degree and brittleness of the deformation diminish upward. The Tapeats is clearly faulted but the layers above it are folded by 'flexural slip' meaning that bedding planes slid over one another and there were probably minor faults that cut bedding. This type of deformation would result in some thickening and thinning of formations.

This publications shows some more detailed information on the East Kaibab Monocline and the deformation occurring there:

http://earthquakes.ou.edu/.../Reches_monoclines_part%20I.PDF

See Figure 5.

On reference suggested that the Cretaceous Wahweap Formation shows that the deformation occurred at that time because of thickening to the southeast across the fault/fold zone.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.

Of course it's a diagram. There's really no point in even mentioning the thicknesses except they've been indicated on the diagram and we're discussing whether greater thickness would be the result of deposition onto a slope. There is no indication of greater thickness on the horizontal parts of the diagram, just the small variations along the length of the layers.

Percy announced a rule. I'm announcing my own: none of the strata of the sort known in the Grand Canyon ever deposited except horizontally. Weary of the way everything I say is dealt with here.

I'm sure you're right about me being right.

As for your edits you added a totally incomprehensible picture of an unidentified something. Yes it's always possible to find a picture of something somewhere that supposedly contradicts any given general statement. You seem to like that method of debate.

I'm sure you're right about me being right. As for your edits you added a totally incomprehensible picture of an unidentified something. Yes it's always possible to find a picture of something somewhere that supposedly contradicts any given general statement.

And some statements are easy to contradict.

Because they are wrong.

You seem to like that method of debate.

Well, you could have asked.

They're just facts, Faith, just facts.

Of course it's a diagram. There's really no point in even mentioning the thicknesses except they've been indicated on the diagram ...

Not sure what you are talking about here. Where are the thicknesses indicated?

... and we're discussing whether greater thickness would be the result of deposition onto a slope.

Actually, no. We were discussing whether sediments could be deposited on a slope at all.

There is no indication of greater thickness on the horizontal parts of the diagram, just the small variations along the length of the layers.

I agree, however, as Moose indicated, you are over-interpreting a schematic diagram.

Percy announced a rule. I'm announcing my own: none of the strata of the sort known in the Grand Canyon ever deposited except horizontally.

Actually, I think you said it NEVER happened.

Anywhere.

Weary of the way everything I say is dealt with here.

There are ways of fixing that.

slap slap poke slap punch kick slap slap slap punch poke slap slap whack hit jab slap slap poke punch kick kick slap slap poke slap punch kick slap slap slap punch poke slap slap whack hit jab slap slap poke punch kick kick slap slap poke slap punch kick slap slap slap punch poke slap slap whack hit jab slap slap poke punch kick kick slap slap poke slap punch kick slap slap slap punch poke slap slap whack hit jab slap slap poke punch kick kick kick kick kick

Faith writes: Percy announced a rule. I'm announcing my own: none of the strata of the sort known in the Grand Canyon ever deposited except horizontally. Weary of the way everything I say is dealt with here.

Your own experiment demonstrated that this isn't true, that sediments can deposit on a slope. You can deny the results of your own experiment, but I have already ruled on this point. If you would like to discuss this further then you should propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics.

Given that I have been very, very clear about this in my recent messages I am suspending you for 24 hours.

Please, no replies to this message.

While running errands this morning I bought a few supplies, and upon returning home I repeated the "sedimentation on a slope" experiment. Here's the tank before adding any sediments:

Here's the first layer of sediments:

And here's the second:

While running errands this morning I bought a few supplies, and upon returning home I repeated the "sedimentation on a slope" experiment. Here's the tank before adding any sediments: ...

Very nice.

Gosh all hemlock, pretty much even thickness throughout!

And even examples of material being deposited on a slope outside the tank. Sheesh.

Edited by jar, : left out "on a slope"

Faith writes: HERE's another copy of the picture, a bit larger to show more detail, but not as large as it can get:

Is it possible you used Magic Sand for your upper layer:

It has a coating that makes it hydrophobic.