Summations Only

:facepalm: I really don't know what to say... are you being serious that you don't get this?? I am beginning to wonder if you really don't even believe what you are saying but are simply disagreeing just to disagree. But I guess I will have to take you at face value and assume you really don't get it. I made a sketch of what I am talking about below. The flow rate is a given because it depends on all the source water from upstream. The width is constrained by the stream banks (the uplift will also lift the banks as well as the bottom). The only variable is the velocity. Of course this is a simplified illustration, but it is the basic principals involved.Faith, this is elementary physics. If you can't get this why should I take anything you say seriously?HBD

Well, it wouldn't actually raise the water level, because the water will be trying to find the lowest level possible. I drew it backing up to show you where the energy would come from to push the water through the uplifted section at a higher velocity. Somewhat yes. It would depend on how much resistance to flow there is in that area such as rocks or vegetation. The water will want to reach the optimum velocity of 26.6 ft / sec (at the uplift in my illustration) but if there is resistance, it may swell up somewhat, but the upper surface of the water will remain relatively flat. Very basic formula. There would be other factors that would come into play such as texture of the river bottom, debris etc. but this is a basic flow calculation. You could rearrange it to say "volume = area * velocity" if that makes more sense. It really wouldn't increase the volume of water behind the barrier since the water would constantly be forcing itself through barrier. The upper surface of the water would remain relatively flat. Just visit a local stream sometime. That's exactly how it works. Rapids would be areas of fast moving shallow water (very high energy), which would be followed by a deeper area called a pool where water would be slower moving (lower energy). I am trying to be patient and understanding and I try to be respectful of your beliefs, but if you have to ponder on very basic matters such as this one, then maybe its time to slow down and go back and learn the basics before trying to tackle the big issues. Maybe a lot of these "misunderstandings" would be cleared up if you could grasp the fundamentals of physics and geology. I really am not meaning this as a personal attack or a slam against you. But that's where so much of the difficulties are coming from in this debate.See, I don't believe that water flows faster through a shallower channel because I believe in an old earth. I am not skeptical that the entire geological column could be scoured up, laid down, eroded and then lithified in less than a year because I have been indoctrinated by old earth philosophies - I have those opinions because I can understand the basics which can then be applied to the more complex problems. It seems to me that you are so intent on proving a young earth and disproving an old earth that you have skipped that valuable step of learning the basics.So much of science can be learned in a totally age neutral way. There is no need to say anything about old earth/young earth when learning about how rivers cut through the landscape. I even tried to show you how the geological column can be age neutral.Again, I am not trying to belittle you, but basic scientific principals seem to elude you. It may be time to redirect your energy into developing a better understanding of the basics. I think you will be less frustrated too.HBD

I watched that video on salt deposits, and I had forgotten that Michigan had one of the largest deposits of salt right under Detroit; 1,200 ft below. The mine was opened in 1910 and closed in 1983. During that time miners removed enough salt to create a 1,500 acre expanse with a 100 miles of roads! And there is still an estimated 71 trillion tons of salt remaining! They reopened in 1998 and produce road salt - something we need a lot of here in Michigan. SourceHBD

I take it this picture is from a location above Glen Canyon Dam, so this would actually be in Lake Powell ?? Wow, it looks like water level is down about 150+ feet! I'm kinda surprised the original channels haven't been completely filled in with sediment.HBD

It is really hard to get a good perspective of scale in that picture, but those little white specks are boats, so it is an enormous area! I think that is all still part of Lake Powell, so those high water marks could be ~150 feet above water level. Probably right, maybe when Lake Powell is all the way full? But Idk, if the white high water mark is 150 above water, then the water level would have to be another 150 feet and Glen Canyon Dam doesn't have that much capacity.Here's an interesting image from a little further upstream on the Colorado but still within Lake Powell. It shows a meander that has been cutoff and is now a meander scar. I noticed this feature in the Grand Canyon too and I have some ideas about it, but I'll have to respond to that later.HBDABE: original image at Message 1445Edited by herebedragons, : fixed image/ different imageEdited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

I don't know what was wrong with it, so I replaced it with a different and better image.Here's another one that has both the Rincon and the San Juan River meanders in one shot. HBDABE: I see RAZD was able view the original image, so idk ... you can see the original at Message 1445Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.

Percy said the image didn't work and I had no idea why, so I put up a different one. Check it out, it's even more impressive! Message 1424HBD

Uh....??????? I got nothing. Maybe relatively narrow, but still a massive chunk of rock. If you imagine the original path of the river and then imagine the size of the peninsula that would have been there, the amount of material that needed to be eroded it is just incredible.I am not sure about this but I think when Lake Powell fills up to capacity, the cutoff floods with water. If you look at the detailed view of the bend, the bed looks like it has been under water with deposits typical of lake bottoms.Another thing that surprises me is how close that meander comes to the big bend in the San Juan branch.HBD

I already said this. Yes, you would get some surge at the barrier, but the amount of surge would depend on the amount of resistance the water meets at the barrier. In the sketch I drew it would have fairly significant surge, but I exaggerated the whole system for clarity sake. Yes, you are wrong. Unless you completely obstruct the flow or restrict it to the point where it cannot flow through the barrier fast enough - for example, if you restricted that entire flow to going through a straw, then only so much water could go through the straw (without pressurizing it) and water would back up behind it. But we aren't talking about that severe of a restriction. I already answered this too. The water would NOT mound up behind the barrier. I drew it that way to show you where the energy came from to push the water through the uplifted section at a higher velocity, which you said defies all physical laws. The mounding is theoretical because whenever the level increased even slightly, the energy would be transfer to the downstream water to make it flow faster. Being a plant biologist myself, I am a non-geologist, but I know basic physics. good grief, the formula is right. This is you avoiding admitting that you are wrong, even after accusing me of defying gravity with my old earth voodoo. I showed you how gravity actually provided the energy to increase erosion in an uplifted area, and now you don't care. Classic Faith, classic. You should be glad that its only dozens being thrown at you and not all of the problems there actually are. And that's just in the Grand Canyon area, perhaps we should move on to the other 99.9% of the world and discuss all the problems with a global flood we find there too?HBD

I would say that is deep. I found out more about the green color. It comes from an anaerobic environment where Fe(III) is reduced to Fe(II). So the requirement is not "deep", per say, but anaerobic. But 100 feet should do.Now if you figure the deposits are only 112 miles long (approx. 100 wide) by 100 ft. deep- that is only 212 cu. mi. of water in the lake.Faith reported that Steve Austin puts the volume at " 3000 cubic miles in an area of 30,000 square miles." (Message 1377). That would make the lake and average of 530 feet deep. That doesn't seem realistic. Lake Michigan only averages 280 feet deep and Lake Superior 480 feet deep. I find it hard to believe that the topography of the area around Lake Bidahochi could support such a deep lake.HBD

I was going to mention that she should take her ideas over there, they wouldn't disagree with her. (Except that she might be a little too rational for those people) :/I take it you spent time there? What was your screen name? Mine was the same as here; banned for unknown reasons, I hadn't even posted for a month when I found I had been banned, no warning or anything. Oh well.HBD

Hey Jon, I think you got this, but just to be clear ... I believe clay can be lithified without cementation since the grains are so extremely small and tend to carry an ionic charge. Thus her argument that she can compress clay into a hard rock. I am not sure about this, but I think some materials can become cemented with being compacted. But I'm not completely sure about that. But anyway, the degree of compaction can vary depending on the pressure applied. The more pressure applied the tighter the grains will be and the stronger the material. This might provide a good test of her ideas. If grains in lower strata show only tangential contact but upper strata show sutured contact, that would essential falsify the idea that all the layers were laid down at one time. If that were true, we should see a progression from lightly compacted on top to severely compacted towards the bottom. However, I don't know where that information could be found.HBD

Yea, that's what I found too. A man named McKee did a lot of work in the '30s and '40s and seems to have laid the foundations (no pun intended ) for our knowledge of the Grand Canyon. However, his books are not in digital format, at least that I could find, so one would need to go to the library.HBD

Well yes, backup would raise the level of the river behind the barrier. But just because there is a barrier doesn't mean there will be a backup. The barrier could be small enough that the water could just flow around it. You really should. Formulas provide us valuable information about physical properties. However, formulas are hard to wiggle out of ... it's hard to deny 1 + 1 = 2. My example was purely hypothetical. You couldn't understand where the energy was coming from to increase erosion and how water could climb an uplift, and so you accused me and others of defying gravity and other physical realities. My flow velocity of 20 ft/ sec is quite high, but change the flow volume so that the velocity is 5 ft/ sec, or whatever, the point was to show where the energy comes from. But if the volume increased, the level would increase, so this doesn't make any sense. Both situations would be driven by gravity. The outcome would be basically the same. What it's describing. I am not a big fan of the math either, but it is part of doing science. Still, the math involved in this system is so simplistic that it barely counts as a formula. The actual formula involved in calculating stream flow is a bit more involved. Here is an example of how to calculate stream flow. You're the arbitrator of rational? And ... the escape clause. Of course, there could be a million arguments that make a global flood that occurred 4350 years ago untenable, but your one observation that all the strata where laid down flat (relatively flat) before there were any major tectonic disturbances destroys them all. No need to even consider them.HBD

Oh, Thank You. Sometimes your responses are so nomadic and elusive that I can't figure out if you actually understand the point. Like this quote: So I am just going to ask straight out. Do you understand why people think that a river could cut through an uplift? Do you understand why this situation does not defy gravity but instead uses gravity to provide the energy to increase flow velocity and therefore increase erosion of the uplifted area?That is all I was trying to get across in this line of discussion. I thought it was a simple fact that could be easily explained, but I guess not. I was not trying to convince you this IS what happened, just the principals behind it; it's not voodoo.HBDABE: I am going to drop this line of discussion regardless, but I just want to know whether you get it or not.Edited by herebedragons, : No reason given.