Do you have a way of explaining the tilt otherwise that's reasonable?
Of course there's a perfectly reasonable explanation but you avoid even answering the simplest question relating to the explanation. This is highlighted by the excellent drawing and associated questions that Percy (and several others) have asked you but you refuse to answer.
One more try:
When material falls out of suspension in calm water at the left and right edges of the drawing and lands on the bottom surface of the pond/lake, what transports said material from the edges of the lake to the center of the lake? How does it get there? Who/what picks it up off the bottom and carries to the center of the lake (could be miles).
Most of it is irrelevant, ridiculously irrelevant in the case of ThinAir's misreading of the planes in the picture, and I believe I've answered most of the other arguments already.
That "ridiculous" interpretation of the lines you've drawn has been shown by numerous other members here to be a totally reasonable point -- that point being that you've been attempting to pull fine, relative angle detail from a single picture taken from a single location. Such pictures are subject to quite a number of variables that you aren't even aware exist, let alone are taking into account. While you were expounding in the accuracy of your interpretation and mocking my comments, I was busy looking at that exact spot from literally dozens of different camera angles which as Percy has pointed out allow one to get a far better feel for reality.
Lens and subject surface distortion (unless quantified) make it literally impossible to draw lines 'on the screen' and then measure relative angles between them with reflective accuracy. If you have a distortion map for the lens and a accurate map of the surface, it's them possible to produce a rather complete picture of the surface and lines, but without that you're barking in the wind. The second best solution is to look at a number of different pictures taken from different angles and thus deemphasize such artifacts. Several of us have been looking at dozens of such different picture angles and using that to understand the cut better. You were not. I also am quite confident that you wouldn't know how to integrate a surface/distortion map to mathematically correct for these artifacts even if you were provided one (nor would you recognize it if it were emailed to you).
This is not to say that much can't be learned from pictures -- just that one must be aware of the limitations. Ignorance combined with arrogance are a bad mix.
I've been out backpacking for a couple days but I scanned the thread to catch up. I didn't find where Faith posted the answer to this question (It's actually an HDB question that I did a zoomed in sketch for) so I'll try again:
(The lines and yellow arrow were drawn by Faith, the red circle and red arrow were added by me for emphasis)
Faith, if rock represented by your yellow lines stayed in place while the rock represented by the orange lines fell as you assert, where is the gap between the lines (in the red circle) that would be created?
You don't think it makes sense to talk about an increase in rock volume unless there's actually more sediment added?
Water changes volumes through changes in temperature. Yeast increases the volume of bread dough by converting sugars into carbon dioxide gas bubble. Soils reduce in volume through compaction. All of these processes are well understood and repeatable.
Granted my analogies aren't that great but stretching versus compaction ought to make the point that volume can increase or decrease simply mechanically.
And what I am repeatedly asking (and you're not answering) is how does rock increase in volume? By what process? By what mechanism?
What evidence do you have for this magical "rocks suddenly grows in size whenever Faith wants to say they did" process. Right now, all you have is a bald assertion because you need it to able to happen. Magic just doesn't count here.
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.
Since you're "Ok with either explanation", you're openly saying that you're still Ok with an explanation that has no substance behind it -- that rocks can puff up their size at will. Just don't expect anything heaped on that idea other than ridicule.
Think of how unstable buildings would be if rocks suddenly could just become bigger now and then. Concrete would fall apart. Foundations would blow open. Buildings would suddenly tilt and fall over. Bridges would fall. Construction as we know it would never have started and stone would be one of the most unstable and useless building materials of all time.
But as we know ... stone is the most stable and predictable of all construction materials precisely *because* we can count on it to not suddenly change it's volume whenever Faith decides it's convenient.
... it must be that the narrower part to the right was formed by compaction. I'm OK with either explanation.
Ok, let's explore the "compaction" explanation. Here is your originally marked up photo that I've been working from:
Just to review, you're premise is that the rock represented by the "sagged and tilted" orange lines that you drew there were once in the same plane as the rock represented by the yellow lines.
I've modified my zoom image to include a few extra circles (pink) so I can better understand your position.
With your "compaction" explanation, are you saying that rather than the orange lines having sagged down from the yellow level (which would require the magical expanding rock bs), you are saying that your short yellow lines were pushed UP from the orange level to where they are now, and the material within the pink circles was compacted that extra distance?
It's been informative (but not surprising) to see the rejection of the clear and unambiguous testing. Those of us who have high regard for evidence have a difficult time imagining how something so obvious can be so utterly minimized and yet ... .
Because I went through it, I know it's a long process going from "I just believe because I must" to "I want to understand how the physical world actually operates before drawing my conclusions." It's something I'm dealing with every day with my YEC friends and family. Thankfully, there are many out there who are gradually accepting the evidence in front of them.
In addition to the "Strata only forms horizontal", I'm particularly baffled by the belief that there is some process for producing weathered and eroded (missing material) surface while buried. Simply astonishing.