Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 57 (9173 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: Neptune7
Post Volume: Total: 917,585 Year: 4,842/9,624 Month: 190/427 Week: 0/103 Day: 0/8 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Formations really do match detailed lab expts of sorting under rapid currents
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 130 (26133)
12-10-2002 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 75 by Tranquility Base
12-09-2002 11:29 PM


TB writes:
Fom this post it is then clear that a 'time-stratigraphic' unit for you can cut across bedding planes. Is that true?
I've only repeated it about a dozen times.
TB writes:
It is what is seen in Berthault's experiments.
And in the field. None of this has been any suprise to geology since about 1600 in a general sense, and about 1912 to 1932 in a specific, experimentally verified sense.
TB writes:
How do you identify time-stratigraphic units since progradation of any sort makes it difficult?
That is a very intelligent and relevant question. It is one of the few times you have allowed yourself to consider the possibility that geologists may have already addressed the issues you have raised.
Therefore it deserves a careful and well-researched response. Naturally, it will also be a rather complex and detailed response. It would help if you told us which geology texts you own so that we can refer to diagrams and page numbers as needed.
Part of the problem here is that you (and Berthault, possibly) have been proclaiming the death of the Law of Superposition when you have actually been presenting evidence against the Law of Original Horizontality (sediments are deposited in strata that are not far from horizontal, and parallel or nearly parallel with the surface on which they are accumulating).
When presented in intro geology classes, the two laws are presented as universally true. What Berthault and Julien (and Bouma (1962), Schmincke et al.(1973), Bailey and Weir (1932), Kuenen (1966), and Ball et al. (1967)) have shown is that under the right conditions, Steno's second Law (Original Horizontality) does not apply - thus the concept of time-transgressive formations, strata and beds.
Perhaps you could get a head start on the detailed careful response mentioned above by researching what you think might be useful ways to determine a time-stratigraphic unit. Can you find or deduce any on your own?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 11:29 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-10-2002 12:27 AM wehappyfew has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 77 of 130 (26135)
12-10-2002 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by wehappyfew
12-10-2002 12:11 AM


Wehappy
I have access to most standard introductory texts via our geology library. The sedimentology texts I have read include Blatt et al, Pettijohn et al and a half dozen more I can't remember the names of.
A few times I was referring to the principles (plural) of superpositon so I was, perhaps without sufficent clarity, including horizontality in my statements. Superpositon itself is violated: if superposition states that layer 1 was laid before layer 2 that is already wrong in general.
The exeriments find that part of layer 1 (lower) is laid after parts of layer 2. Of course superpositon is true at fixed X but the statemens about srata occurring one oafter the other are incorrect. A stratum is a stratum. A statement about a stratum indicates its entire length, not just at one point X uless otherwise specified.
Time stratigraphic boundaries might be identified by fossils for you guys but we would disagree of course. Under rapid flow, rather than gradual coastal migration, organisms would also be sorted during burial and this would not necessarily indicate a time-stratigrpahic boundary for us. From Berthaulty's studies one could perhaps geometrically reconstruct the lkely time-statigrohpical boundaries and these may even agree with some simple rules of thumb already developed for prograding strata.
It still seems to me that gradual inundation and Bertahult's effects are qualitatively different mechanisms. Why? In Berthault's effect the vertical sorting is hydrodynamic and due to flow rate changes. In the gradual inundation mechanism the vertical sorting is due to the sea-level change.
The novelty that Berthault and Julien are claiming is three-fold:
1. They have shown that what applies to facies via Walther's law applies also at the idividual stratum level.
2. By watching in the flumes they understand exactly how it works and by varying the currents and particle size they can directly explore the size/velocity-structure relationships.
3. The mechanims is clearly hydrological sorting and does not require a gradually changing sea-level.
If you don't appreciate the precison and detail of what they have done, I just have to disagree with you. I think they have deomnstrabley proven that what they are doing has brought a long needed robustness to the understanding of sedimentation mechanisms.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by wehappyfew, posted 12-10-2002 12:11 AM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 12-10-2002 3:03 PM Tranquility Base has replied
 Message 88 by wehappyfew, posted 12-11-2002 9:18 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 78 of 130 (26216)
12-10-2002 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by Tranquility Base
12-09-2002 8:42 PM


TB writes:
I don't call his two 2002 papers on the subject 'nothing coming of it' the way you do. It hasn't set the world on fire, agreed, but it is published mainstream in 2002.
Are the 2002 papers relevant to this discussion? In other words, are they on the topic of Paleohydraulic analysis? Do they provide supporting evidence for Berthault's claims about the Tonto group? Are they on the same topic that Piveteau's and Millot's letters supposedly addressed (that should be a tough one to answer, since you only have Berthault's word on that and at least half the letter's authors are dead)? Or are they a red herring?
Steve Austin is now publishing in the mainstream literature, but these papers express only mainstream views. Until you provide the actual subjects of Berthault's 2002 papers showing that he has succeeded in getting Creationist views published in mainstream literature, I suspect the same here, that these papers reflect mainstream views. I suspect that your implication that the mainstream is moving toward Berthault specifically or Creationism generally is without foundation.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 8:42 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-10-2002 6:09 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 79 of 130 (26219)
12-10-2002 3:03 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Tranquility Base
12-10-2002 12:27 AM


TB writes:
If you don't appreciate the precison and detail of what they have done, I just have to disagree with you. I think they have deomnstrabley proven that what they are doing has brought a long needed robustness to the understanding of sedimentation mechanisms.
This is the same invalid position adapted by wmscott (flood caused by glacial melt) and w_fortenberry (geocentrism), that the measure of your ideas is somehow a function of how strongly you hold them. This couldn't be more wrong.
The measure of your ideas and evidence lies in their power to persuade others to your point of view. We know you hold your ideas as firmly as ever, but stating and restating this fact does not somehow turn immovability in to a point in their favor. You need converts in order to demonstrate that your ideas have the power to persuade. That's why you and Berthault and Creationists in general feel the need to quote mainstream scientists making supposed expressions of support for your views.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-10-2002 12:27 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-10-2002 6:05 PM Percy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 80 of 130 (26238)
12-10-2002 6:05 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Percy
12-10-2002 3:03 PM


Percy
The results speak for themsleves. These guys could have got into Nature if not for the flood conotations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Percy, posted 12-10-2002 3:03 PM Percy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 130 (26239)
12-10-2002 6:09 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by Percy
12-10-2002 1:52 PM


The papers are:
"Geological Dating Principles questioned"
G. Berthault (2002) Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics, 22:19-26
"Analysis of Main principles of Statigraphy on the Basis of Experimental Data"
G. Berthault (2002) Lithology and mineral Resources, 37: 509-515

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by Percy, posted 12-10-2002 1:52 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 12-11-2002 12:16 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 82 of 130 (26248)
12-10-2002 9:44 PM
Reply to: Message 75 by Tranquility Base
12-09-2002 11:29 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
Look Edge, I think we are agreeing with each other but you keep trying to make it out that I think layer 4 at X could have formed before layer 1 at X. I do not.
What I think is new is that under catastrophic flow one gets something that bears similarity to a gradual inundation.
Actually, not. Under a gradual inundation we would see shales and limestones. These experiments do not address this aspect of nature. You have committed another hasty generalization that this flume experiment extends to all geological formations.
quote:
Fom this post it is then clear that a 'time-stratigraphic' unit for you can cut across bedding planes. Is that true?
Depends. Normally, internal laminations of the type you see forming in the flume experiments are cut by bedding planes. They are found within beds. They may cut across compositional layering, but usually not across bedding joints.
quote:
It is what is seen in Berthault's experiments. How do you identify time-stratigraphic units since progradation of any sort makes it difficult?
I hate to bring this up again, but to experienced geologists it is practically second nature. That is why we spend years studying these things.
[This message has been edited by edge, 12-10-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 75 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-09-2002 11:29 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-11-2002 12:49 AM edge has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 84 of 130 (26256)
12-11-2002 12:16 AM
Reply to: Message 81 by Tranquility Base
12-10-2002 6:09 PM


The Journal of Geodesy and Geodynamics is Chinese, and Berthault has evidently published in it the same article he ran in Fusion magazine in 2000.
As for the publication in Lithology and Mineral Resources, the page numbers were actually 442-446 according to the on-line contents. According to the abstract it appears to be the same material under a different title.
Either one by itself would have been a major coup, but publications in two journals? You geologists out there, how do you explain this?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-10-2002 6:09 PM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-11-2002 12:43 AM Percy has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 85 of 130 (26257)
12-11-2002 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 84 by Percy
12-11-2002 12:16 AM


If you looked at the titles of my papers you would thnk I've done the same thing for 10 years!
And there is nothing wrong wiht airing data at a confernece or in a non-peer reviewed journal and then submitting it for peer review. All you do is risk being scooped.
And many paper titles sound the same but cover different data sets for example. I am currently submitting three papers on protein folding all with similar sounding titles but each covers a different student's work.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Percy, posted 12-11-2002 12:16 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 12-11-2002 8:02 AM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 86 of 130 (26258)
12-11-2002 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by edge
12-10-2002 9:44 PM


Edge
You may, or may not, have a good point about the limestones. I don't know how Austin accounts for that.
In Julien's experiments the time boundaries are at about a 60 degree angle within a stratum to the bedding planes so it is a very difernet sceanrio than you are used to. The time boundaries cut across compositon boundaries and stratum bedding planes.
TB: It is what is seen in Berthault's experiments. How do you identify time-stratigraphic units since progradation of any sort makes it difficult?
Edge: I hate to bring this up again, but to experienced geologists it is practically second nature. That is why we spend years studying these things.
If it was laid by Berthault's mechanism it would be very difficult to succesfully do without simulating the entire deposition.
[This message has been edited by Tranquility Base, 12-11-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by edge, posted 12-10-2002 9:44 PM edge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by edge, posted 12-11-2002 4:04 PM Tranquility Base has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22607
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 4.8


Message 87 of 130 (26281)
12-11-2002 8:02 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Tranquility Base
12-11-2002 12:43 AM


TB writes:
And there is nothing wrong wiht airing data at a confernece or in a non-peer reviewed journal and then submitting it for peer review. All you do is risk being scooped.
Do you know if these are peer-reviewed journals or not?
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-11-2002 12:43 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-11-2002 5:32 PM Percy has not replied

  
wehappyfew
Inactive Member


Message 88 of 130 (26285)
12-11-2002 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Tranquility Base
12-10-2002 12:27 AM


There's a lot of imprecise and ill-informed language in your posts, TB.
TB writes:
Superpositon itself is violated: if superposition states that layer 1 was laid before layer 2 that is already wrong in general.
No, superposition refers only to a point. At any point, as you have already agreed, the lower layer forms before the higher layer. Original Horizontality IS violated in a prograding (or a transgressing) sequence. The lower layer at point Y is formed after the higher layer at point X.
TB writes:
A statement about a stratum indicates its entire length, not just at one point X uless otherwise specified.
Actually, most strata and formations are assumed to be diachronous, or time-transgressive. Only someone with a kindergarten understanding of geology would make a blanket statement about the age of a stratum indicating its entire length.
TB writes:
It still seems to me that gradual inundation and Bertahult's effects are qualitatively different mechanisms. Why? In Berthault's effect the vertical sorting is hydrodynamic and due to flow rate changes. In the gradual inundation mechanism the vertical sorting is due to the sea-level change.
This does not follow logically. In Berthault's scenario, what causes the flow rate changes? Is it not the increase in water depth as the Flood migrates across the land?
Are you claiming that the lime muds, shales, silts, sands, gravels, cobbles and house-sized blocks of the Tonto can all be deposited simultaneously in the same flow conditions (like Julien's flume) WITHOUT any transgression?
In gradual inundation, are not the sediments sorted "hydrologically" - coarse grained sediments are deposited near-shore in high current conditions, and fine grained sediments are deposited off-shore in low current conditions?
Unless your answers to the questions above are different from what I expect, your 2 scenarios are NOT qualitatively different. The real difference is that one violates the observed behavior of sediments in moving water. Berthault's flow velocity of .5 to 2 m/s is too fast to allow anything smaller than 7 to 60 mm gravels and cobbles to deposit.
You have not been able to even remotely refute this simple fact.
I am a little disappointed at your weak attempt at researching chronostratigraphy. Is that all you can come up with?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-10-2002 12:27 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-11-2002 5:41 PM wehappyfew has replied

  
edge
Member (Idle past 1785 days)
Posts: 4696
From: Colorado, USA
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 89 of 130 (26332)
12-11-2002 4:04 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Tranquility Base
12-11-2002 12:49 AM


quote:
Originally posted by Tranquility Base:
You may, or may not, have a good point about the limestones. I don't know how Austin accounts for that.
Well, if you can't answer it, then it is a good point.
quote:
In Julien's experiments the time boundaries are at about a 60 degree angle within a stratum to the bedding planes so it is a very difernet sceanrio than you are used to.
How do you know what I am used to? I have seen this phenomenon in the geological record, probably thousands of times. How do you think this has escaped the notice of geologists for the last 200 years?
quote:
The time boundaries cut across compositon boundaries and stratum bedding planes.
Show me where they cross true bedding joints.
quote:
TB: It is what is seen in Berthault's experiments. How do you identify time-stratigraphic units since progradation of any sort makes it difficult?
Edge: I hate to bring this up again, but to experienced geologists it is practically second nature. That is why we spend years studying these things.
If it was laid by Berthault's mechanism it would be very difficult to succesfully do without simulating the entire deposition.
Not at all. As I have said, we see these things frequently (but not everywhere, just why is that?) in the geological record.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-11-2002 12:49 AM Tranquility Base has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Tranquility Base, posted 12-11-2002 5:54 PM edge has replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 90 of 130 (26337)
12-11-2002 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by Percy
12-11-2002 8:02 AM


I'll leave it for the geologists here to clarify that. They look and smell like peer reviewed journals.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by Percy, posted 12-11-2002 8:02 AM Percy has not replied

  
Tranquility Base
Inactive Member


Message 91 of 130 (26338)
12-11-2002 5:41 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by wehappyfew
12-11-2002 9:18 AM


Wehappy
Is it not the increase in water depth as the Flood migrates across the land?
I had thought of that. Perhaps the two are essentially the same. I might get Berthault's publications and read them carefully.
Are you claiming that the lime muds, shales, silts, sands, gravels, cobbles and house-sized blocks of the Tonto can all be deposited simultaneously in the same flow conditions (like Julien's flume) WITHOUT any transgression?
Probably not, you're quite right that sea-level changes are important in our scenario too. However . . .
In gradual inundation, are not the sediments sorted "hydrologically" - coarse grained sediments are deposited near-shore in high current conditions, and fine grained sediments are deposited off-shore in low current conditions?
Yes, the sorting happens horizontally hydrodynamically, but the vertical facies effect only occurs as the coastline migrates. In Julien's experiments you do not need migration to get vertical sorting.
You raise good points (that I have already thought about) and I really am just wanting to sort this all out. Berthault and Julien have uncovered the details for how strata can be rapidly generated via sorting. If you really saw the actual videotape I doubt that you would deny that this mechanism was essentially new.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by wehappyfew, posted 12-11-2002 9:18 AM wehappyfew has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by wehappyfew, posted 12-11-2002 10:11 PM Tranquility Base has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024