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.
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.
It wasn't identified as Magic Sand, but it was intended as decorative sand for plants among other things. Décor Sand I think it was called. The label said nothing about a coating, I looked carefully after it clumped up. It was available in small bags in bright colors at the crafts store.
... 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.
I am not getting this. What?
If you're saying something else then please explain.
You've proved it's possible, but not that it's how any of the strata actually formed, including the sagged layer in that road cut picture. I can't prove they formed any other way, however, so there's nothing more I can say about it at this point.
The strata present as originally horizontal, and in some places as still horizontal to great depths (miles) and across huge areas of geography. Where they are deformed it is usually clear that they deformed as a block of layers that were originally horizontal. This slope idea is brand new, conjured out of thin air.
I believe I gave other reasons to think that sagged layer was not deposited that way other than that sedimentation on a slope is impossible. Just looking at it, its form and how the whole left side of the stack tilts down to a small extent, and the rougher rock about where the sage begins, and how it the layer is narrower over the schist to the right where it must have been "pinched," tells me it sagged while still soft enough for that.
THIS IS WHAT I THINK, BUT SINCE I CAN'T PROVE IT I'M NOT ARGUING IT ANY MORE HERE.
Again my experiment did not prove what I was talking about, which was that STRATA wouldn't deposit evenly along the whole length of a layer such as that sagged layer. Yours suggests even that is possible, but mine, no. You are confining it to the slope itself, but I believe I said enough to show why I didn't accept that fact alone as a fulfillment of the experiment.
For reference, here's one of the photos snapdragon did for us:
The rougher rock is a sort of hinge point where the layers start the sag to the left, the whole stack as a matter of fact, and to the right of it they are narrower, showing pinching against the basement rock.
All the layers of the Grand Canyon, including missing layers that have eroded completely away, were deposited by the flood.
Except I don't accept the idea that whole layers eroded away. Itr's possible even in the Flood, but basically that's an idea necessary to the integrity of the Geologic Time Scale for which the evidence isn't exactly present.