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

But did you perform the thought experiment? If sand falling on a slope always rolled all the way to the bottom, how could slopes of sand ever form? If water behaved like sand then you could have piles of water, but you can't, because water doesn't behave like sand. And if sand behaved like water then you could never have piles of sand, but you can, because sand doesn't behave like water.Here's an experiment you can perform right now without any assistance, and you'll be able to reuse the sand. Place a sheet of paper on a table. Put some sand into a cup. Pour the sand slowly onto the center of the piece of paper until a pile forms. All sand on the surface of the pile is sand that did not roll all the way to the bottom of the pile, even though it fell on a slope. Note that this is the same procedure you would use for the dry angle-of-repose experiment, so measure the angle. Do you have a protractor?When done you can replace the sand in the container.Since you plan to use clay as a surface, it seems possible that if the clay is very slippery that the sand will slide down it, so make sure the surface of the clay isn't so slick that sand can't stick to it. An easier way to create a sloped surface is to take a large floor tile and prop up one end. Be sure it's upside down so that the rough bottom surface faces upward. A paving brick or even a full width brick would also serve.

And how did your thoughts imagine that sand could form a pile with a slope if each new grain of sand rolled all the way to the bottom?

Some of the recent posts could be interpreted as rebuttals to the position that slopes of sedimentary layers can't exist, so I'll just clarify that that isn't Faith's position. Her position is that sedimentary layers are always deposited horizontally and only tilted later by tectonic forces, and that sedimentary layers cannot be deposited upon a sloped surface.What these recent posts are actually noting is that if sediments cannot deposit upon sloped surfaces then no slope of sand or dirt could ever form anywhere, which is, of course, absurd.The hope is that the experiments Faith plans to perform will convince her that sedimentary layers can indeed form upon sloped surfaces, allowing discussion of the thread's original topic to proceed.

If sand can form a slope, and if a slope of sand can become buried, and if the sand can become lithified, then how could strata forming while sloped be impossible? The road cut was just an illustration of your general assertion that layers always form horizontally and only later become tilted by tectonic forces. You would have to give up not just your position on the road cut, but this position in general.

You will no longer be able to argue that tilted or bent or sagging layers could only result from originally horizontal layers that were later operated on by tectonic forces. You'll need to cite evidence.Edited by Admin, : Grammar.

Faith sent me these photos of experimental results. Here's the angle of repose: And here's the sedimentation results. The experimental setup of the slope appears excellent, but the clumping sand is very weird: Faith sent some accompanying comments, and although there was nothing private it is my policy to never cut-n-paste from a private email without prior consent. Perhaps Faith would be willing to post some further comments here.

Wasn't it your "theory" that it is impossible for sediments to accumulate upon a sloped surface (see, for example, your Message 1752)? Isn't the light sand resting on the sloped surface evidence against your "theory"?

This doesn't make any sense. When deeply buried and under great pressure, what would prevent the area of the light sand layer that I've indicated from becoming lithified just like the rest of the layer? About this part: Unless there was no sand at all on the slope before you "evened it out", it proves that sediments do deposit on a slope. An equal volume of sediment descending everywhere will accumulate to the same vertical thickness everywhere, including upon sloped surfaces. If instead of measuring vertical thickness you were to measure the thickness normal to the surface then layers upon sloped surfaces will have less thickness, but this is by mathematical necessity because of the greater surface area of the sloped surface relative to level surfaces across the same horizontal expanse. However, the lessened thickness of the sloped sand layer in your experiment is far too great for that to have been a factor. It could only be due to uneven deposition and to the effects of when you "evened it out."But the depth of sediments on sloped versus level surfaces was never part of anyone's "theory". Your objection was that sediments could not accumulate upon sloped surfaces, but quite obviously they can, and they look just like the sediments that accumulate upon level surfaces.

Those posts are so old now that I think it would be best if we just let discussion return naturally. If anyone has specific issues they'd like addressed they can raise them again.

This again makes no sense. You didn't quote anything I said, I can't tell what you're responding to, and I'm unable to figure out in what way you're misunderstanding this, so I don't know what I could explain that might help you.The evidence from your experiment was unequivocal that sedimentary layers can form upon a slope. The thickness of sedimentary layers can obviously vary for numerous reasons and still be lithified, if that's what you mean by "make a stratum."Unless you can raise objections that I can make sense of, I'm ruling that sediments can form upon slopes, that there is no evidence at the road cut we were discussing to indicate the reason for the change in slope of the layers, and that therefore it could have been original or due to later changes. I'm also ruling that there is no requirement that sedimentary layers always be deposited horizontally. If you'd like to discuss these topics further then I welcome you to propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics, but we'll no longer be discussing them in this thread.

As I said, if you want to make an argument I can make sense of then I'm all ears, but otherwise we're moving on. Your position never made sense from the beginning, your own experiment proved your position wrong, and unless you can make arguments I can make sense of then that's the end of it in this thread. If you'd like to continue the discussion about sedimentation on a slope then simply propose a new topic over at Proposed New Topics, but we're not going to spend any further time on that diversion here in this thread. This thread will return to discussing its original topic.

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:

Is it possible you used Magic Sand for your upper layer: It has a coating that makes it hydrophobic.

You proved it first. Let's not leave an ambiguous qualification hanging undefined so that you can later claim it means whatever you eventually decide this means. If you're saying that whatever originally caused the surface to slope is not relevant to sediments being able to accumulate on it, then yes, that's correct. If you're saying something else then please explain.