Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Origin of the Flood Layers
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 223 of 409 (753116)
03-17-2015 2:00 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by NoNukes
03-17-2015 12:21 AM


Re: What-ifs
Believe it or not I'm not worried about "my own beliefs" at all.
When I say the ideas I'm talking about are plausible and a serious challenge to the conventional views, in my opinion THEY ARE OBJECTIVELY PLAUSIBLE AND OBJECTIVELY A SERIOUS CHALLENGE. Stop pretending you know more about what I think than I do.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by NoNukes, posted 03-17-2015 12:21 AM NoNukes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by vimesey, posted 03-17-2015 5:10 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 237 by RAZD, posted 03-17-2015 3:45 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 229 of 409 (753161)
03-17-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 7:58 AM


Re: What-ifs
duplicate I keep accidentally putting in a bracket which cancels out everything after it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 7:58 AM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 230 of 409 (753162)
03-17-2015 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 7:58 AM


Re: What-ifs
Stop lecturing me. I know what I mean and your opinion is absolutely worthless to me. When I say I believe it's objective that's what I believe and I know what the word means. When I have the evidence then you'll know it's objective too. I am not even trying to DO "correct science," I'm trying to do what is needed to prove the Flood. You don't like it, it's not "correct science," but I COULD NOT CARE LESS. It's what has to be done under the circumstances. Please stop your patronizing lectures.
Believe me, if I ever prove these things you'll say it's scientific.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 225 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 7:58 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by ThinAirDesigns, posted 03-17-2015 1:03 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 234 by JonF, posted 03-17-2015 1:27 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 239 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 6:24 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 231 of 409 (753165)
03-17-2015 1:02 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 8:21 AM


(image above) The clasts are composed of the same material that the lower layer (layer "A") is made of and they have been incorporated into the upper layer (layer "B"). This is the evidence (there is more as well) that layer "A" was exposed to the surface and subject to erosion and then overlain with layer "B" creating an unconformity between the two layers.
Now, how will you respond to evidence?
I'll say that picture is about as weird as possible. The upper stuff looks like it was originally sort of frothy or something, with that front rolled edge, sort of like sticky candy before it hardens, and that when it rolled over the lower stuff the clasts stuck to it. It's not even apparent that the clasts are of the same material as the lower layer. If something isn't clear, and this isn't, you can't expect me just to accept whatever you say about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 8:21 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by edge, posted 03-17-2015 1:31 PM Faith has replied
 Message 241 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 6:47 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 236 of 409 (753185)
03-17-2015 3:18 PM
Reply to: Message 228 by edge
03-17-2015 12:12 PM


G.U. Fountain Formation
This is the Great Unconformity in the Red Rocks area of Colorado. It is actually a 'nonconformity' at this location since the underlying rocks to the lower right are granite and the overlying rocks are sand and gravel of the Fountain Formation that are derived directly from the older granite. Note that the rocks have been tilted to the left since deposition of the sedimentary rocks
Since I'm not really sure which rocks are which I tried to identify them this way:
So, I figure the rocks above line (1) are the "sand and gravel derived from the older granite."
I don't know if everything between 1 and 3 is the same rock, which I guess would be the "sedimentary rock" or the Tapeats sandstone?
And I'm not sure if the rock below 3 and 4 is the same rock: the granite I suppose if so.
Question is how the sand and gravel at the top came from the granite below with something completely different in between.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by edge, posted 03-17-2015 12:12 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by edge, posted 03-17-2015 5:02 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 242 of 409 (753268)
03-18-2015 4:35 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 8:21 AM


Layer "A" is deposited. It is then exposed to the surface and subject to erosion. Erosion of layer "A" results in debris which is composed of material that originated in layer "A". Then layer "B" is deposited on top of layer "A". The debris which was a result of erosion of layer "A" and is composed of layer "A" material is then incorporated into layer "B".
Material that is composed of layer "A" that has been incorporated into layer "B" is the "bullet-proof" evidence of what the sequence of events were.
(image above) The clasts are composed of the same material that the lower layer (layer "A") is made of and they have been incorporated into the upper layer (layer "B"). This is the evidence (there is more as well) that layer "A" was exposed to the surface and subject to erosion and then overlain with layer "B" creating an unconformity between the two layers.
Now, how will you respond to evidence?
Apparently you have no idea how patronizing you are to me. Do you know what the word means? It means you talk down to me as if I were a small child. And I don't even think children should be talked to like that.
In this photo there is no question that layer B follows layer A as you say. It also follows in the same order where the Supergroup is tilted, the only argument I've been making being that the *tilting* itself occurred at the same time as the uplift after all the strata were in place above. (Edge says the truncated faults prove it didn't happen in that order). In my scenario the Tapeats would have been laid down over the uppermost layer of the Supergroup before it tilted, and it would have been laid down over the schist and the granite as well. I don't think I've said anything to challenge that order of things.
However I would as usual challenge the timing you consider to be evidenced in this photo.
Layer "A" is deposited. It is then exposed to the surface and subject to erosion. Erosion of layer "A" results in debris which is composed of material that originated in layer "A".
Just as I've interpreted the quartzite boulder embedded in the Tapeats in earlier discussions, I would suggest that there is nothing in this photograph to suggest a long period of erosion before the deposition of the sandstone. For one thing it doesn't even LOOK LIKE the surface of the Vishnu was eroded, it looks to me like a baked and dried-out wrinkled surface that hasn't been eroded, what one might expect of rock that had been subjected to the heat of magma, which became the granite associated with the schist. I'm sure there is other evidence that isn't apparent on the photograph of course, but just by the look of it there is no evidence of erosion requiring me to agree with you.
The thickly fluid sandstone -- (ABE: VISCOUS: that's the word that's been escaping me. /ABE) -- could have picked up fragments of quartz from the schist as it rolled over it if they were loosely embedded in it. Those clasts are obviously not of the same material as the schist, and edge says they are quartz, which is what they look like.
The photo seems to me to show the sandstone as having a thick forward edge to it that stopped at that point before hardening. I don't see any evidence that the Vishnu in front of it was ever eroded or that the sandstone had been eroded away from it after being deposited on it.
If the photo is not deceiving about this thick forward edge it reminds me of that very strange formation in China I've posted on earlier, the striped rolling sandstone shapes that seem to have been squeezed out of a toothpaste tube or a pastry cone, originally a thick sort of paste. I've wondered why we see that kind of sandstone only in that very strange formation in China, but your picture suggests it's really a typical way sandstone occurs, even in America. Here's the formation in China for reference:
This is the evidence (there is more as well) that layer "A" was exposed to the surface and subject to erosion and then overlain with layer "B" creating an unconformity between the two layers.
Among other things, how does an unconformity result from such a sequence and timing of events? What makes it an unconformity even if this order of things was the case? Again, of course I don't agree that your interpretation of the evidence is as ironclad as you think it is, but I still have this question even if you're right. What makes this an "unconformity?"
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : "viscous" added

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 8:21 AM herebedragons has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by edge, posted 03-18-2015 8:15 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 243 of 409 (753274)
03-18-2015 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by herebedragons
03-17-2015 8:21 AM


Looking at this photo again, it looks to me like the sandstone had just plucked the quartz out of the Vishnu before it stopped moving forward over the Vishnu, then slightly receded in the process of hardening so that you can see it holding on to the quartz it had just lifted out of the Vishnu. I've marked the edges of the depressions in the Vishnu which fit the shapes of the quartz stuck in the sandstone. In other words, no erosion had to occur to expose that quartz, that's just the way it was embedded in the Vishnu in the first place:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by herebedragons, posted 03-17-2015 8:21 AM herebedragons has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 7:53 PM Faith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 248 by edge, posted 03-18-2015 8:25 PM Faith has replied
 Message 251 by herebedragons, posted 03-18-2015 10:34 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 244 of 409 (753276)
03-18-2015 6:26 PM
Reply to: Message 235 by edge
03-17-2015 1:31 PM


When a rock unit erodes at the surface, the produced sediment is always to some degree stripped away by erosion. That would be by mass-wasting, or streams or sheet runoff or debris flows etc. However, if that process is incomplete, there will very often be a zone immediately above weathered rock that includes fragments of that underlying rock.
I gave my alternative interpretation of the Tapeats-Vishnu photo to HBD. The erosion interpretation is plausible of course but I think my version is more plausible.
For instance, in the example I provided earlier, the granite is weathered to granite rock fragments, and grains of quartz, feldspars, and micas, etc. These may be carried far away or be hardly transported at all; but when lithified, they form a sedimentary rock that we call an arkose (usually a sandy or gravel deposit). In the case shown, the sediment was nor far removed from its source and forms a very nice, picturesque deposit known as the Fountain Formation immediately on top of the granite. While the Fountain Formation was deposited in the range of 300-400my ago, it's source was the much older granite.
I appreciate your marking the photograph to show what you mean. I had missed what you said about the Fountain formation's having been deposited "immediately on top of the granite," so assumed it was another version of the GU that included the Tapeats.
However, I never can see the need of those hundreds of millions of years and can't see it here either.
The source of the Fountain formation's being the granite isn't problematic, though it's not clear to me how it got there, and I don't know why the contact between the two is considered to be an unconformity.
If you look up the subject "Red Rocks" you will find a beautiful setting outside of Denver, now used by humans for music concerts. This will be an interesting unconformity, perhaps in a few million years...
Yes it's a nice setting, checked it out, though of course the remark about millions of years as usual has me unconvinced.
Any questions, feel free to ask. This is actually a very interesting and sometimes non-intuitive subject.
Yes it is interesting.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 235 by edge, posted 03-17-2015 1:31 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 249 by edge, posted 03-18-2015 8:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 245 of 409 (753279)
03-18-2015 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 243 by Faith
03-18-2015 6:05 PM


Just to be as clear as possible, here's an updated version of that photo showing more precisely how I think the quartz most likely originally fit into the Vishnu:

This message is a reply to:
 Message 243 by Faith, posted 03-18-2015 6:05 PM Faith has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 247 by edge, posted 03-18-2015 8:18 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 252 of 409 (753294)
03-18-2015 11:46 PM
Reply to: Message 246 by edge
03-18-2015 8:15 PM


In my scenario the Tapeats would have been laid down over the uppermost layer of the Supergroup before it tilted, and it would have been laid down over the schist and the granite as well. I don't think I've said anything to challenge that order of things.
Why would the Tapeats be laid down over the Vishnu sequence in your scenario? I thought you had all of the sediments deposited before anything else happened. In that case Supergroup rocks should always be between the Tapeats and the Vishnu.
Unless some of them became that very schist when the uplift occurred (yes I'm still considering it very possible because of all the different kinds of rock that have been found in it and because of the granite within it which I know you think of on a different time scale but could have been released as magma within the same time frame as the uplift and all the rest of it), pushing the schist up alongside the remaining Supergroup, now broken and tilted. (And since you want an explanation for how the faulting could have managed not to extend up into the Tapeats if it all happened in this order, I figure that's because the faulting occurred while the Supergroup blocks were being shifted laterally under the Tapeats in the same movement that broke them and tilted them. If they'd stayed in one place the faults would have continued upward, but if they slid sideways that would have been prevented.
In fact we see Tapeats overlying all formations of the Supergroup in every cross-section visited, not just the uppermost.
OK, but because the Supergroup always has Tapeats overlying it, doesn't mean that Tapeats can't also overlie schist somewhere else.
Just as I've interpreted the quartzite boulder embedded in the Tapeats in earlier discussions, I would suggest that there is nothing in this photograph to suggest a long period of erosion before the deposition of the sandstone.
When you look at the source of the gravels at the base of the Tapeats, there is no other explanation for their distribution.
I don't think these gravels you keep mentioning have actually been shown in a photo here, have they? Sorry I missed it, if so. And what do you mean by "their distribution" and what is it about these gravels that requires this explanation? Again I'm sorry if I missed your explanation. I have a lot to absorb here, very likely I've missed stuff while I'm thinking about something else.
Besides, it doesn't have to be a long period of erosion. A short period of erosion could conceivable remove a large part of the rock record. This is one of the things that people often do not understand about unconformities.
OK but how short?
For one thing it doesn't even LOOK LIKE the surface of the Vishnu was eroded, it looks to me like a baked and dried-out wrinkled surface that hasn't been eroded, what one might expect of rock that had been subjected to the heat of magma, which became the granite associated with the schist.
Not really. These rocks have been heavily weathered and picture that I showed you attested to that fact.
Do you mean the one I've been discussing, where the Tapeats is shown partly covering it, with the quartz clasts stuck in it?
I'm sure there is other evidence that isn't apparent on the photograph of course, but just by the look of it there is no evidence of erosion requiring me to agree with you.
The relationship of the basal gravel to the underlying rock is an established fact.
What basal gravel? It isn't showing in this photograph, right? The only thing we see is the hunks of quartz (or pegmatite) which look like they were just plucked out of the Vishnu.
The thickly fluid sandstone -- (ABE: VISCOUS: that's the word that's been escaping me. /ABE) -- could have picked up fragments of quartz from the schist as it rolled over it if they were loosely embedded in it.
Where have you ever seen a 'viscous' sandstone?
.
Never, of course, but this sandstone looks like it had to have once been describable that way, before hardening, just as those strange formations in China suggest the same previous condition. Or do you have another explanation for those Chinese sandstone shapes?
However, yes, some fluid (possibly even water???) has deposited sand on the large boulders that are directly weathered out of the Vishnu sequence.
"Deposited sand on?" Are we looking at the same picture? I see an expanse of what you identified as Tapeats sandstone with these quartz or pegmatite boulders stuck in its front edge ("front" meaning where the Vishnu schist begins to be exposed in the foreground, and where it looks (to me) like there are holes in the Vishnu that very nicely fit the size and shape of the boulders.) I don't any sand "deposited" on the boulders, I see boulders stuck in the sandstone. (By "boulders" I'm assuming you mean the quartz clasts. There is no way to tell the scale in that picture but if they are "boulders" perhaps they are as large as that quartzite boulder I've mentioned before, which is about fifteen feet in height. Do you know the scale of the objects in the photo?)
Those clasts are obviously not of the same material as the schist, and edge says they are quartz, which is what they look like.
One of them looks like pure quartz the others appear to be granite pegmatite clasts composed of large quartz and feldspar crystals. This distinction, however, is unimportant as the the origin of the fragments. They clearly came from the older rocks. They are not exotic.
I assume you are reiterating that they came out of the Vishnu schist?
The photo seems to me to show the sandstone as having a thick forward edge to it that stopped at that point before hardening.
I think you are confusing the sandstones with volcanic rocks here.
Are you still looking at the same picture I am? I'm talking about the one HBD discussed, where the Tapeats is shown with the quartz (or pegmatite) clasts (boulders?) stuck in it. Nobody has identified any volcanic rocks in this picture and I don't see any, just the Tapeats sandstone overlying the schist, which is exposed in the foreground of the picture.
I don't see any evidence that the Vishnu in front of it was ever eroded or that the sandstone had been eroded away from it after being deposited on it.
What do you mean 'in front of it'?
In the foreground of the picture.
If the photo is not deceiving about this thick forward edge ...
What 'thick forward edge'? The unconformity is a gently dipping surface.
OK, here's how I see it:
I've outlined the top and bottom of what I see as the "thick forward edge" of the sandstone, which I think is pretty clearly defined by the shadow that shows it's vertical or near-vertical, although the surface of the sandstone in the background is horizontal. This "forward edge" is where the clasts / boulders are stuck. The size of the boulders should indicate how high this forward edge is, but I don't see any way in the photo itself to determine the scale.
If this is not your view please draw a picture showing how you see it.
... it reminds me of that very strange formation in China I've posted on earlier, the striped rolling sandstone shapes that seem to have been squeezed out of a toothpaste tube or a pastry cone, originally a thick sort of paste.
So, you are saying that the Tapeats was extruded on to the surface of the earth?
Yes that's what it looks like to me in this picture of this location. Not easy to reconcile with the Flood scenario I guess, but that's what it looks like. A thick viscous sandstone moving forward (toward the foreground) over the schist, then stopping its forward movement right over some clasts embedded in the schist, that then stick in it and get pulled up out of their position in the schist when the sandstone hardens and retracts.
I've wondered why we see that kind of sandstone only in that very strange formation in China, but your picture suggests it's really a typical way sandstone occurs, even in America. Here's the formation in China for reference:
It looks like normal bedding to me. Please explain.
Are you talking about the Chinese formation or the photo now? The Chinese formation does sort of look like "bedding," puffy folds of striped cloth bedding. I can't imagine how it looks "normal" to you. Where else on earth is anything like this formation seen?
Among other things, how does an unconformity result from such a sequence and timing of events?
Easy. It's called erosion.
Well, in the case of this picture the erosion looks like it may have been created by the Tapeats sandstone flowing over it and dislodging whatever can be dislodged.
What makes it an unconformity even if this order of things was the case? Again, of course I don't agree that your interpretation of the evidence is as ironclad as you think it is, but I still have this question even if you're right. What makes this an "unconformity?"
I have given you a definition and a link to an explanation of unconformities. Are you not reading our posts?
Right, the erosion at the surface before being covered by the sandstone. Which again I don't find convincing.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 246 by edge, posted 03-18-2015 8:15 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 12:28 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 253 of 409 (753295)
03-19-2015 12:09 AM
Reply to: Message 247 by edge
03-18-2015 8:18 PM


But here is how they really look:
Do we really need to explain this to you?
Don't think so: veins of the quartz (or pegmatite) embedded in the Vishnu schist.
However, I'd guess that wall of rock was probably not subjected to a mass of viscous sandstone rolling over it as is shown in the other picture. Otherwise the sandstone would very likely have picked up chunks of the stuff here too.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by edge, posted 03-18-2015 8:18 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 255 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 12:30 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 256 of 409 (753298)
03-19-2015 12:34 AM
Reply to: Message 254 by edge
03-19-2015 12:28 AM


And no, Faith, there is no 'front' in this photo. It is like a cross section.
I can't read the photo any other way. Please mark the photo so I can see what you mean.
As for your correction of "in front of" as "below," yes the Vishnu is literally beneath the sandstone but it's also in front of it as I read the photo.
No I don't particularly "expect anyone to 'believe' me," that's not the point. I'm describing it as I see it.
I just wanted to say this much, hope to get to the rest tomorrow.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 254 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 12:28 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 258 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 12:55 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 261 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-19-2015 2:08 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 259 of 409 (753303)
03-19-2015 1:20 AM
Reply to: Message 257 by edge
03-19-2015 12:49 AM


Well, here are three I'd posted before:
So are they enhanced in some way?
But yes, I think even those you posted are unusual looking. The only thing comparable I'm aware of is The Wave in Arizona but it's not very comparable, no stripes and no pillowy hills, just red sandstone. The only thing comparable is its separate sculpted shapes.
PLEASE mark that picture of the Tapeats with the clasts or boulders over the Vishnu schist. I have NO idea what you mean by its being like a cross section.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 257 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 12:49 AM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 270 by edge, posted 03-19-2015 11:22 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 260 of 409 (753304)
03-19-2015 1:26 AM
Reply to: Message 251 by herebedragons
03-18-2015 10:34 PM


Thanks for the apology. I'm sorry I complained anyway. If I know anything about why I'm at EvC it's that the Lord is trying to train me to stop reacting to insults among other things, give up my pride etc.
I'll get to your post later, Lord willing. I know I'm getting behind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by herebedragons, posted 03-18-2015 10:34 PM herebedragons has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 264 of 409 (753322)
03-19-2015 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 261 by Minnemooseus
03-19-2015 2:08 AM


As I see that photo, the top of the sandstone is actually about twice as far up as where you drew the upper yellow line. The top is the redder material at the upper-left corner. The part between the yellow lines is more or less vertical, and the part between the top yellow line and the redder top is more beveled back, thus the shadow difference. I'm guessing that a few inches of sandstone thickness is being shown there, and that it is thicker further back, outside the photo frame.
Not quite sure what "twice as far up" means. At least you agree with me that the part I outlined is more or less vertical. You could be right about the beveling of the part I called "horizontal," it's impossible to tell from the photo if it's level or on an incline. I don't really see a "shadow difference" between the sections of the area above the upper yellow line.
The sandstone left there is an erosional remnant - The sandstone used to cover the entire area of the photo.
I can't see it that way at all. The sandstone doesn't look eroded at all for one thing, it just stops at that vertical front edge as I called it. There is no sandstone on the Vishnu schist.
It's NOT that the sandstone stopped being deposited at that point, with the larger quartz clasts being pushed at the front.
I keep seeing it as having stopped rather than having been eroded away to that point because the vertical "edige" is so smooth for one thing. Also I don't see the clasts as being "pushed at the front." At first I did, but as I kept analyzing the situation I noticed the apparent fit of the clasts in the depression right below them. How they fit is what the yellow lines I drew on the latest photo were meant to show. That suggests they had been embedded right there in those depressions, (which occur in a line and probably housed a vein of quartz of which the chunks were a part), and if that's the case then the sandstone itself pulled them out. But the sandstone vertical edge is back a bit from the depressions, so I figured what happened is that it did stop moving over the Vishnu, right over where the depressions are, some chunks of the quartz stuck in the sandstone, and it just sat there until the sandstone hardened enough to shrink and retract back from the depressions, pulling the quartz out of their positions embedded in the schist.
There are most likely more large quartz clasts still conceiled in the sandstone.
Yes, probably lots of them, under that expanse of sandstone in the upper left part of the photo.
OR PERHAPS the quartz chucks are the remains of vein material, still in place.
The ones we can see? They look to me clearly like they've been removed from the Vishnu, from what probably was a vein. Clasts beneath the sandstone in the upper left could still be in place in their veins, but with some shrinkage of the dried and hardened sandstone many of those may be at least loosened too.
Hard to say without looking at it in person, and also without seeing the larger context.
Yes, wish a delegation of EvCers would go take a look.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Minnemooseus, posted 03-19-2015 2:08 AM Minnemooseus has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 274 by JonF, posted 03-19-2015 11:43 AM Faith has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024