Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9073 total)
65 online now:
AZPaul3, EWolf, jar, Tanypteryx (4 members, 61 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,263 Year: 4,375/6,534 Month: 589/900 Week: 113/182 Day: 20/27 Hour: 1/2

Announcements: Security Update Released


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Evidence that the Great Unconformity did not Form Before the Strata above it
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1846 of 1939 (762340)
07-11-2015 10:42 AM
Reply to: Message 1845 by Admin
07-11-2015 8:03 AM


Re: Images from the Experiment
It wasn't identified as Magic Sand, but it was intended as decorative sand for plants among other things. D├ęcor Sand I think it was called. The label said nothing about a coating, I looked carefully after it clumped up. It was available in small bags in bright colors at the crafts store.

Edited by Faith, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1845 by Admin, posted 07-11-2015 8:03 AM Admin has seen this message

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1847 of 1939 (762351)
07-11-2015 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 1841 by Admin
07-10-2015 11:48 AM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
Congratulations, you did prove that it's possible to get layers on a slope, even on a deformed surface.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1841 by Admin, posted 07-10-2015 11:48 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1848 by Admin, posted 07-11-2015 11:59 AM Faith has replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1848 of 1939 (762352)
07-11-2015 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1847 by Faith
07-11-2015 11:47 AM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
Faith writes:

Congratulations, you did prove that it's possible to get layers on a slope,...

You proved it first.

...even on a deformed surface.

Let's not leave an ambiguous qualification hanging undefined so that you can later claim it means whatever you eventually decide this means. If you're saying that whatever originally caused the surface to slope is not relevant to sediments being able to accumulate on it, then yes, that's correct. If you're saying something else then please explain.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1847 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 11:47 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1849 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 12:05 PM Admin has replied
 Message 1850 by petrophysics1, posted 07-11-2015 12:48 PM Admin has seen this message

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1849 of 1939 (762353)
07-11-2015 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 1848 by Admin
07-11-2015 11:59 AM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
...even on a deformed surface.

... If you're saying that whatever originally caused the surface to slope is not relevant to sediments being able to accumulate on it, then yes, that's correct.

I am not getting this. What?

If you're saying something else then please explain.

You've proved it's possible, but not that it's how any of the strata actually formed, including the sagged layer in that road cut picture. I can't prove they formed any other way, however, so there's nothing more I can say about it at this point.


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

Replies to this message:
 Message 1854 by Admin, posted 07-11-2015 3:22 PM Faith has replied

  
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 seen this message

Replies to this message:
 Message 1851 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 1:06 PM petrophysics1 has taken no action
 Message 1853 by edge, posted 07-11-2015 2:36 PM petrophysics1 has taken no action

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1851 of 1939 (762371)
07-11-2015 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 1850 by petrophysics1
07-11-2015 12:48 PM


Re: Where does the horizontal vector come from?
The strata present as originally horizontal, and in some places as still horizontal to great depths (miles) and across huge areas of geography. Where they are deformed it is usually clear that they deformed as a block of layers that were originally horizontal. This slope idea is brand new, conjured out of thin air.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1850 by petrophysics1, posted 07-11-2015 12:48 PM petrophysics1 has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 1852 by edge, posted 07-11-2015 2:24 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1852 of 1939 (762377)
07-11-2015 2:24 PM
Reply to: Message 1851 by Faith
07-11-2015 1:06 PM


Re: Where does the horizontal vector come from?
This slope idea is brand new, conjured out of thin air.

Well, then, it is an idea that your demonstration confirmed.

And no, it's not a new idea ... unless you want to consider me to be a twenty-something, which I could only wish. Take Geology 101 sometime in the last 5 decades or so.

The rest of your post I can't quite decipher, so I'll let it ride for a while and see what develops.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1851 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 1:06 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1853 of 1939 (762378)
07-11-2015 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 1850 by petrophysics1
07-11-2015 12:48 PM


Re: Where does the horizontal vector come from?
If you have a way to deposit rocks horizontally, I'm all ears but make sure you explain to me the vector forces.

Heh, heh...

Let me try.

What if all of the horizontal vectors were equal in all directions?

I know that would just resolve to a single point in a very simple basin, but it would create a point of horizontality, wouldn't it?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1850 by petrophysics1, posted 07-11-2015 12:48 PM petrophysics1 has taken no action

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


(4)
Message 1854 of 1939 (762380)
07-11-2015 3:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1849 by Faith
07-11-2015 12:05 PM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
Faith writes:

If you're saying something else then please explain.

You've proved it's possible,...

*You* proved sedimentation on a slope is possible, too.

...but not that it's how any of the strata actually formed, including the sagged layer in that road cut picture.

They only person claiming they absolutely knew how that layer came to be sloped was you. You said it could only have been tectonic forces, and the reason you said you knew this is because the alternative, sedimentation on a slope, is impossible. But as was explained time and time again, sedimentation on a slope is not impossible but is, in fact, incredibly common, since many surfaces (e.g., continental shelves) are not horizontal and are receiving sedimentation as we speak. And tectonic forces and sedimentation on a slope are not even the only possible causes of a sloped layer. One other possible cause is uneven isostatic depression and rebound. Another is Walther's law, which I think Petrophysics is indirectly referencing and which you continually misunderstand and misapply.

I can't prove they formed any other way, however, so there's nothing more I can say about it at this point.

There's plenty more you can say, but one thing you can no longer say is that sedimentation on a slope is impossible.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1849 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 12:05 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1855 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 5:33 PM Admin has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 682 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 1855 of 1939 (762391)
07-11-2015 5:33 PM
Reply to: Message 1854 by Admin
07-11-2015 3:22 PM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
I believe I gave other reasons to think that sagged layer was not deposited that way other than that sedimentation on a slope is impossible. Just looking at it, its form and how the whole left side of the stack tilts down to a small extent, and the rougher rock about where the sage begins, and how it the layer is narrower over the schist to the right where it must have been "pinched," tells me it sagged while still soft enough for that.

THIS IS WHAT I THINK, BUT SINCE I CAN'T PROVE IT I'M NOT ARGUING IT ANY MORE HERE.

Again my experiment did not prove what I was talking about, which was that STRATA wouldn't deposit evenly along the whole length of a layer such as that sagged layer. Yours suggests even that is possible, but mine, no. You are confining it to the slope itself, but I believe I said enough to show why I didn't accept that fact alone as a fulfillment of the experiment.

For reference, here's one of the photos snapdragon did for us:

https://onedrive.live.com/?cid=5bcf5702893756b5&id=5BCF57...

Well, not getting it to work. Maybe you can.

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.

Edited by Admin, : Fix link.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1854 by Admin, posted 07-11-2015 3:22 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1856 by Tangle, posted 07-11-2015 6:09 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 1857 by edge, posted 07-11-2015 9:35 PM Faith has taken no action
 Message 1859 by Admin, posted 07-12-2015 9:04 AM Faith has replied

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 8494
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.5


(1)
Message 1856 of 1939 (762395)
07-11-2015 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 1855 by Faith
07-11-2015 5:33 PM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
faith writes:

THIS IS WHAT I THINK, BUT SINCE I CAN'T PROVE IT I'M NOT ARGUING IT ANY MORE HERE.

As a general guide, that's a damn good strategy. You should apply it more often. In fact always.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 5:33 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 1857 of 1939 (762408)
07-11-2015 9:35 PM
Reply to: Message 1855 by Faith
07-11-2015 5:33 PM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
I believe I gave other reasons to think that sagged layer was not deposited that way other than that sedimentation on a slope is impossible.

If you want to discuss those reasons, we can do so.

Just looking at it, its form and how the whole left side of the stack tilts down to a small extent, and the rougher rock about where the sage begins, and how it the layer is narrower over the schist to the right where it must have been "pinched," tells me it sagged while still soft enough for that.
THIS IS WHAT I THINK, BUT SINCE I CAN'T PROVE IT I'M NOT ARGUING IT ANY MORE HERE.

A good idea. Often what we think we know is actually found to be in error when confronting the real, natural world.

Again my experiment did not prove what I was talking about, which was that STRATA wouldn't deposit evenly along the whole length of a layer such as that sagged layer. Yours suggests even that is possible, but mine, no. You are confining it to the slope itself, but I believe I said enough to show why I didn't accept that fact alone as a fulfillment of the experiment.

Within the margin of error for kitchen-style testing, I think the results are essentially identical.

Edited by edge, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 5:33 PM Faith has taken no action

  
edge
Member (Idle past 944 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


(2)
Message 1858 of 1939 (762409)
07-11-2015 10:02 PM


I have a couple of photos here from a road cut in Wyoming. I've driven past it dozens of times, but never took a photo myself. Fortunately, we have Google Earth these days and we can go there and snag a picture or two without leaving our desks.

I did a lot of clicking to find this location over the last couple of hours, but now it's recorded for posterity.

Here it is:

Anyone see anything odd, like draped beds or non-horizontal deposits in the very 'flat' siltstone sequence?

If we get a look before the truck arrives this is the detail on the above photo, with a few comments of mine.

What we are looking at is a debris flow or a kind of intraformational deformation caused by part of the sequence detaching somewhere to the left (west) and riding up upon its own depositional surface. There is no change of rock type. I have outlined the upper contact of the flow with yellow dots.

The disrupted mass has moved from left to right. The 'snout' of the flow is exposed in the right center of the image.

Some of the beds have managed to maintain some continuity and deformed to create a synclinal fold just short of the 'snout'.

After the emplacement of the debris flow, siltstone sedimentation simply continued as though nothing had happened. Some of the siltstone is draped down along the snout and eventually builds back to the normal, flat-lying nature of the formation.

The question that I think Petro would ask is, 'okay, why did the debris flow move?'

Well, we could say that God's bulldozer pushed it there, or we could say that the sediments were deposited on a very slight slope and due to some kind of over-steepening or earthquake activity, it moved into what we might call a shallow thrust fault, or an overthrust type of configuration. In sedimentation, gravity is usually the culprit.

In the draped area, there is no evidence that the snout of the debris flow moved in an upward manner to created the drapes. Basically, all we have going on here is normal sedimentation and the drapes formed as sediments collected in that area. Notice that about a foot above the top of the debris flow and across the snout, the beds very quickly become 'straight and level'.

All beds have been tilted by regional uplift to the west of this location.

Next time I get out there, I'll get some more detailed pictures...

Have fun with this.


  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12792
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 1859 of 1939 (762434)
07-12-2015 9:04 AM
Reply to: Message 1855 by Faith
07-11-2015 5:33 PM


Re: Sedimentation on a slope, take 2
Faith writes:

I believe I gave other reasons to think that sagged layer was not deposited that way other than that sedimentation on a slope is impossible. Just looking at it, its form and how the whole left side of the stack tilts down to a small extent, and the rougher rock about where the sage begins, and how it the layer is narrower over the schist to the right where it must have been "pinched," tells me it sagged while still soft enough for that.

THIS IS WHAT I THINK, BUT SINCE I CAN'T PROVE IT I'M NOT ARGUING IT ANY MORE HERE.

It's good that you understand the evidence doesn't support your scenario over other scenarios, but your scenario has one other significant problem: it doesn't make any sense. The "rougher rock" is merely what happened when the road cut was blasted and has nothing to do with anything geological. There is no evidence that the layer was "pinched," and in fact this image shows that the bottom sublayer of this layer disappears as you go from left to right, which is the real reason the thickness of the layer diminishes:

Again my experiment did not prove what I was talking about, which was that STRATA wouldn't deposit evenly along the whole length of a layer such as that sagged layer. Yours suggests even that is possible, but mine, no. You are confining it to the slope itself, but I believe I said enough to show why I didn't accept that fact alone as a fulfillment of the experiment.

I'm not even sure what this means. As Edge says, as kitchen experiments go the results of the two experiments are pretty much the same, I just controlled the evenness of the deposition better than you, and I avoided hydrophobic sand. You seem focused on irrelevant details, like the varying thickness of a layer in your experiment when controls for even deposition were absent. If you can offer reasons that make sense and can be understood for rejecting the results of your own experiment then please proceed, but otherwise my ruling that sedimentation can occur on a slope stands.

I fixed your link.


--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1855 by Faith, posted 07-11-2015 5:33 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1860 by petrophysics1, posted 07-12-2015 11:01 AM Admin has replied
 Message 1863 by Faith, posted 07-12-2015 12:37 PM Admin has replied

  
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 replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 1861 by edge, posted 07-12-2015 11:32 AM petrophysics1 has taken no action
 Message 1866 by Admin, posted 07-12-2015 3:37 PM petrophysics1 has taken no action

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022