Does it make you happy to keep on pretending to debate with someone who has stopped debating? Does it make you feel like a big shot that you can accuse the opponent of errors that won't be answered? Do you feel like somehow your geological integrity has been defended by your deceitful means? You make up stuff against me and lie about me and I DON'T WANT TO BE IN THIS DEBATE.
The sediments have to be WET and already fairly consolidated. A test with loose sediment is ridiculous. I think I may have described a test somewhere myself. The force should come from the side against yhe lower strata. YES I EXPECT THE FORCE TO AFFECT THE UPPER PART TOO, I EXPECT IT TO RAISE IT , to LIFT IT UP as I believe evidently occurred as shown on the GC cross section I've posted many times here. The apparatus has to be designed to allow this to happen as it would in nature. The lower strata BUCKLE, the upper strata are RAISED AT THE LEAST, sometimes other things happen to them, such as breaking up and being washed away. THIS IS THE FLOOD AFTER ALL, during or after I'm not sure, but the sediments are STILL WET when this occurs.
I HAVE THOUGHT THIS THROUGH MANY MANY TIMES, and you are just a self-important geologist who is always getting insulted if a creationist dares to disagree, so you're willing to resort to straw man duplicity and other tricks to win at all costs. Your model is a silly straw man. I've already thought about this and don't need your input.
I understand that you are angry. That is my main take-away from your post. I can't do much about that.
You could try being fair. You could try realizing you have been playing sneaky games and cut it out, you could try realizing I've thought this through, you could try realizing that it's possible for someone to make a reasonable judgment of physical things without a degree in geology. You could try realizing you aren't god and you have no more right to my respect or deference than any nongeologist.
ABE Oh, and you could request the removal of your travesty of a POTM or suggest to Moose that he hide that post too since it's a stinkin straw man fraud motivated by anticreationist malice. /ABE
This is basically a scale model with its shortcomings,
The "shortcomings" are not just shortcomings, they disqualify the whole mess.
... but the point is still valid that the upper layers are uplifted and deformed. Do you see the lines cutting across the surface of the uppermost layer? Those are fault lines. See the fold that has been created? The axial plane of that fold will eventually rupture and form a major thrust fault that has to go somewhere and the only alternative is up.
I don't know for sure what you are talking about, since my eyes may not be good enough to see those lines you, but it sounds like the cracks in the strata I took into account with my many discussions of how I think the GC formed -- that tectonic pressure angled the lowermost strata beneath the Tapeats, (your loose sediments model couldn't possibly show this kind of effect -- the sediments have to be consolidated enough to hold together but flexible enough to deform without breaking) which I ascribe to the difference between the kinds of rock at the point where the force was beginning to dissipate. If all one kind of rock was involved I would expect there might not have been a detachment at all and a lot more destruction -- so the angling of the lower strata PUSHED UP the entire stack above it and in the case of the GC somehow that stack remained intact which doesn't seem to have happened anywhere else. The stack was complete and at least two miles deep from the Tapeats up, possibly much deeper than that.
SO HERE'S THE RELEVANT POINT: The strain of the uplift would have CRACKED THE UPPERMOST STRATA. Which is what I suppose you are calling FAULTS. You can see on the cross sections that the whole stack is uplifted right where the canyon cuts into it, slightly to the south of the uppermost height of the uplift. So I figure there were many very deep cracks in those uppermost strata at the top of the uplift, which began to break up and wash away in the receding Flood waters, washing away in all directions to the point of scouring off the limestone surface of the Kaibab Plateau, that limestone being another point of resistance in that area since it remained intact and didn't break up, the surface of the "Permian" period ending the Paleozoic, beyond which far to the north some of the stack from the Mesozoic through the Cenozoic remained intact while the tectonic disturbance cut away pieces of the strata to form the Grand Staircase
But back to the Gtand Canyon: the cracks that formed right over the center of the uplift broke up everything down to the Kaibab, and one of them became a crack or more likely series of cracks wide enough to become the canyon itself. It was then further widened by the chunks of strata breaking off and being washed into this largest crack or collection of cracks. It all washed down and out to the Gulf of California as the Flood receded, scouring out the canyon as it went.
Again, the strain of the uplift caused by the upending and pushing up of the lowermost strata caused by the lateral tectonic force, caused the cracking of the uppermost layers two to three miles up, that broke up and washed away, a lot of it into the cracks that became the GC. Have I dealt with your faulting sufficiently? If not, go soak your head.
So, where are those faults cutting the cutting the Great Unconformity?
There is a fault line shown cutting down the canyon itself. There are also fault lines where the lowermost strata of the Supergroup beneath the canyon are broken and uptilted. If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head.
The underlying rocks are weakly to severely folded, so the strain must be very high. You cannot avoid the displacement.
Is the pushing up of the Paleozoic strata in the GC enough or not? Is the cutting of the canyon because of strain to the uppermost layers enough or not? The GC is very interesting for the very fact that the upper (Paleozoic) strata remain intact to an enormous depth. That doesn't exist anywhere else, right? At other locations the same tectonic force seems to have had somewhat different effects, but nevertheless you can see its effect in the formation of the entire GC-GS area.
If this isn't sufficient for you, go soak your head.
Even if we accept your detachment theory, the strain is not uniform and there should be some implications for the overlying rocks.
The uplift, the breaking up of the uppermost layers possibly to a depth of as much as two miles, at least a mile, above the Permian or Kaibab, which cracked sufficiently to create the Grand Canyon itself, scour the Kaibab, cut all the stairs of the Grand Staircase with its canyons etc etc etc. Is that enough implications for the overlying rocks or not. If not, go....
In a dynamic analysis, you would need to explain how you apply the compressive forces to just a lower block. It is not clear how this is possible. What exactly is the vise-like plate that you envision? Please describe the source of the forces.
It's from looking at the various angular unconformities that I realized that the force had to come against the lower strata, and then I realized that tectonic pressure on the continental plates would be strongest the lower you go, and its energy would most likely dissipate by the time it reached a certain level in the stack, at which point it could affect a weak point, say the contact between two different kinds of rock, which does appear to be the case in angular unconformities -- two kinds of sandstone in the case of Siccar Point, Tapeats sandstone over I'm not sure what at one location but over schist and granite in others, which I believe would make for a point of least resistance -- at which point the lower stack would buckle under that contact, (or even compress into schist and granite since this is all accompanied by a volcano beneath the center of the uplift sending up fingers of magma into the rocks which would add heat to the compressive force) and the buckling would raise the stack above it. Sliding between the upper and lower rocks would also happen.
And I haven't even started on the necessary shear that must accompany your scenario.
Yeah, well, it's the shear that accounts for those very straight tight horizontal contact lines I showed in the pictures linked somewhere above, (see HERE) and where it all went is that most of it got forced out and washed down the canyon, which I think explains the situation in the pictures the Great Dragonfly god posted.
You can spare me the kneejerk debunkery, I couldn't care less. I'll be refining this same idea for some time to come I'm sure, and your debunkery is irrelevant. '
ABE: If my description doesn't relate to faults, that's not important, I was guessing about what you were expecting to see. Apparently I was wrong about that but it doesn't matter.