Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9057 total)
432 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, jar, nwr, PaulK, Percy (Admin), Tangle (7 members, 425 visitors)
Newest Member: drlove
Post Volume: Total: 889,841 Year: 953/6,534 Month: 953/682 Week: 6/182 Day: 6/27 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 623 of 1939 (754645)
03-29-2015 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 620 by edge
03-29-2015 1:39 PM


Re: Navajo Sandstone
Hi edge,

Have you ever seen the upper surface of the Navajo Sandstone? It's the kind of thing that's a bit difficult to find on the internet unless you know the name of a place where you can look at it, and I do.

It's in Arches National Park, I was just there looking at it a couple of weeks ago.

WOW, you can see the dunes and the interdune areas on the top of it. I have better pictures than this but my wife has my camera in Denver at the moment. All the white sandstone from the forefront is Navajo.

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 620 by edge, posted 03-29-2015 1:39 PM edge has not yet responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 1850 of 1939 (762366)
07-11-2015 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 1848 by Admin
07-11-2015 11:59 AM


Where does the horizontal vector come from?
No sediments/rocks are deposited horizontally.

All have depositional slope.

The vertical sequence of rocks that you see is the result of the horizontal movement of depositional environments.

What makes the depositional environments move horizontally?

Well they are on a fucking SLOPE. That is where the horizontal force vector comes from.

If you have a way to deposit rocks horizontally, I'm all ears but make sure you explain to me the vector forces.

P.S. Admin I'm not picking on you, I just thought you might actually understand what I'm saying.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1848 by Admin, posted 07-11-2015 11:59 AM Admin has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 1851 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 1:06 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 1853 by edge, posted 07-11-2015 2:36 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


Message 1860 of 1939 (762445)
07-12-2015 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1859 by Admin
07-12-2015 9:04 AM


How you figure this out
Admin,

Some time ago I asked you what exactly you do to determine the depositional environment of rocks.

The first thing you do is measure a section. This has all the descriptions of the rocks and exactly how thick they are.

In 1859 posts there is not a single measured section presented.

Geology is a 3D problem with time.

How you figure this out is you measure sections until you have enough of them to actually make a 3D picture of what is going on.

Do you know that if you actually measured sections of rocks you would know how insane the stuff Faith is saying actually is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1859 by Admin, posted 07-12-2015 9:04 AM Admin has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1861 by edge, posted 07-12-2015 11:32 AM petrophysics1 has not yet responded
 Message 1866 by Admin, posted 07-12-2015 3:37 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1926 of 1939 (762958)
07-18-2015 10:46 AM
Reply to: Message 1924 by edge
07-17-2015 11:36 PM


East Side of the Ancestral Rockies
Edge,
It might be noted that there are alluvial fans all over the arid and semi-arid SW US. There are mountains in the Eastern US from Georgia to New Hampshire. I've been all through them and there are no alluvial fans. To much rainfall and therefore vegetation to get the kind of rapid sediment influx you need to make an alluvial fan.

Thing that struck me about your Cutler X-section is it is very similar to the X-section from west of Denver to Eastern Colorado. The Fountain Formation is also alluvial fans coming off the eastern flank of the Ancestral Rockies. You probably know this as Garden of the Gods, Red Rocks Park and the Boulder Flatirons.

At Red Rocks Park the Fountain is 1500 feet of massive sandstone and conglomerate, but just 5 or 6 miles to the north where I70 crosses it it is only a few hundred feet of red-brown mudstone with thin SS stringers. At I70 it is and interfan area which little deposition. So much for formations being flat and of uniform thickness.

The Fountain can be traced for well over 150 miles and it changes like that along its entire exposure.

My Stratigraphic Atlas of North and Central America by Shell Oil has an excellent X-section of this and I'll try to get it scanned and posted.
I have a guest from Australia showing up shortly so maybe later tonight or tomorrow.

BTW since Faith's ideas about the GU are mechanically impossible I found it amazing anyone would waste their time on it. You are dealing with someone who doesn't know how to solve a simple vector problem in high school physics and probably can't do 9 grade algebra.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1924 by edge, posted 07-17-2015 11:36 PM edge has not yet responded

  
petrophysics1
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 1927 of 1939 (762959)
07-18-2015 11:09 AM


Geology is 3D
Everyone go and look at the X-section of the Cutler which Edge posted.

Now imagine what an X-section perpendicular to it would look like if it was right along the mountain front in the fan deposits. It would look like the sand and conglomerate for the fans were thick and nearly continuous and the same thickness.

A picture or a X-section are a 2D representation of a 3D object this can lead to all kinds of problems including you're thinking you know what the rocks are doing when what's actually happening is completely different.

The solution to this is to make fence diagrams which are a whole series of intersecting X-sections. This allows you to see what is actually happening in 3D. Google "fence diagram images" to see exactly what I'm talking about.

P.S. Faith's arguments remind me of the movie "The Wrath of Khan" where Spock tells Kirk that Khan shows a preponderance of 2D thinking. Kirk moves vertically....checkmate!

Edited by petrophysics1, : No reason given.


Replies to this message:
 Message 1928 by Faith, posted 07-18-2015 10:11 PM petrophysics1 has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022