Summations Only

When I was a kid growing up in Ann Arbor they used to have tours of the salt mines. Don't know if they still do.

Indeed, it seems to me that the best argument against a flood carved Grand Canyon is all the similar erosion of the canyons upstream of the Grand Canyon -- or the focus on the Grand Canyon is irrelevant if the upper canyons are not formed by the same process.

Beauty! Couldn't be better. That would have been a narrow section of a meander that eroded through, with slope failure where it was undercut from each side.This is what is impending in the picture I showed.Edited by RAZD, : all three imagesEdited by Admin, : Narrow image width.

So how would flood flow cause that meander to form and then be cut through?

And a lot of things can cause an anaerobic condition -- peat bogs for instance -- without being deep.To me the flood lake hypothesis is a non-starter because a draining lake does not form canyons like we see upstream of the GC, end of argument, the flow conditions are totally different for the drained lake area than for the outflow, and this fails to explain the similar formations between canyons above and below Page and the Powell Dam.

So now the flood to a side step into a dead end off the main river line, forming a box canyon perpendicular to the river flow line, another not seen fantasy ...And then the river cut through hundreds of feet of rock just because the box canyon was there rather than straight down the main flow line. And then it cut through the meander peninsula rock. In a few days.Riiiiiiiiiiiight.This is above the Grand Canyon Faith. Your scenario for formation of the Grand Canyon relies on this area being flooded, pooled, before it cuts through the ridge. Your path cutting flow is already past, so how do you cut these canyons? Move the lake upstream?

Why would there be any difference in the increased velocity and erosion occurring from any constriction of the river flow?If uplift causes a small mounding in the river bottom and bank collapse causes a small mounding in the river bottom, how can the river know which is which?

Let's see if we can find the trouble. A meandering path for the water prior to the uplift. We'll assume that all those previous posts somehow missed this rather critical element, and that now we have cleared this up: uplift has a boundary, and that at this boundary is where we first find added erosion that leads to the headcutting. Which is the middle junction between the two boxes in this experiment. It isn't -- the whole plain upstream is lifted for this part of the experiment. Thus we lift the upstream box maintaining the slope it had before that caused meanders.Whether we lift it 10" in one lift or 1" increments in 10 lifts the results should be similar: headcutting from the junction point uplift boundary upstream until either (1) the bottom slope matched the slope of the downstream box or (2) stopped at a steeper slope but one where erosion no longer occurred (not necessarily the same slope but they could be). This is the other part of uplift when the ridge at the eastern end of the canyon is lifted, so let's keep these two parts separate at this point. We'll come back to this part later. Yes, the key is thinking of a slow continuous process that occurs while the river is flowing. Good. The whole upstream box is lifted, with all the meanders that have happened on that section, the whole downstream box is unmoved, with all the meanders that have happened on that section. The only difference is the change in elevation at the junction. The video shows an idealized situation and I don't expect to see that in our model as neatly as the video implies.As the headcutting proceeds it will leave behind it a new river bottom between the headcutting and the junction between the boxes, where the slope of the bottom is the maximum slope where bottom erosion does not occur.The maximum non-erosion slope is likely steeper than the meandering plain slope and so the amount of verticle headcutting will diminish with distance from the junction of the two boxes until this bottom intersects the existing meandering stream bottom on the upstream box. Any clearer now?If not I'll draw some pictures to see if that helps.

What you need to consider is that both a bottom mound and a side mound restrict the flow at that point. Both will cause some raising of the river top elevation (but it is not directly proportional to the blockage because what you need to do is calculate the energy gradient) and both will cause erosion of the blockage at a greater rate than the riverbed erosion.I'll try to make it simple.Let's assume that the blockage (whatever the shape) causes the river to rise until the section in the middle of the blockage has the same area as the original stream, still within the banks of the river. The flow rate here should be ~same as before ... yes?However from that midpoint downstream to the end of the blockage the river is now steeper than previously, faster, and with more erosive power. The top of the river will lower as the speed increases because the flow cubic feet per minute is the same.This will erode the restriction from the downstream side up until the restriction is eroded away and the previous flow is restored. Yes, the question is the degree and how it affects the long term flow. The long term flow remains the same ...So at some point upstream and at some point downstream the river will have the same flow rate (cu.ft./min), and this means that this flow rate occurs through the area of impedance. Impedence is force yes? Equal and opposite reaction means the river acts with greater force where it is impeded, causing more erosion.

IIRC this was posted in some form:lithification
noun Geology .
the process or processes by which unconsolidated materials are converted into coherent solid rock, as by compaction or cementation.

When? Please make a timeline of all your different events Faith.1. Flood covered everything
2. ?
etc. ??? this doesn't make any sense at all. An average section would be more characteristic of the whole canyon while your choice is only characteristic of one extreme. Why don't the other sections count? Because they are too similar to the upstream canyons? But you don't have the catastrophic release flow upstream, you just have the rivers, and they carved canyons similar to the Grand Canyon in cross section and in plan view.The water flowed out of the purported impoundment from the top down ... there was no current at the bottom until just the river was left.How does that form steep sided canyons?

Thanks That lake covered Glenn Canyon so that canyon was not yet eroded. And carving the Glenn Canyon at that time ... in a manner that is entirely similar to the Grand Canyon even though it is a totally different process.

Because it doesn't climb up onto the uplift and already has the incised meanders when the east-west uplift occurs.There are several different phases\areas\locations of uplift.Maybe a set of pictures would help.

You have to think in terms of equilibrium energy states. The river before the obstruction is introduced can be defined by these equations and the river after the obstruction is introduced can be defined by these equations once the flow has once again reached an equilibrium in the energy distribution. If I introduce any size obstruction at section 2 in the upper graph then the value of H_f1-2 is increased and the surface level will be higher. The actual amount may be unnoticeable but it is still there.At some point upstream of the obstruction and at some point below the obstruction the energy flow states will be unchanged (as long as the obstruction doesn't entirely block the flow). The only question is how far apart this is and how much the levels in between are affected. It doesn't appear backed up because it has reached equilibrium and this backup causes increased flow to the right of the log and to the right of the island while still remaining in the laminar flow (another issue not discussed yet) in these sections (versus turbulent flow at the log). Laminar flow and turbulent flow have different friction gradients with depth. It's called fluid dynamics, equations way beyond Faiths capacity or willingness. Note the discussion of viscous flow and that the viscosity of the liquid affects the behavior. Thus mud flow differs from pure water, but both can be mathematically modeled.Edited by RAZD, : ..

Yep, and we can look at how Hurricane fault at mile 220 is pretty concurrent with the river at that point but then the river turns away from a course down the fault line, while at the other end we have the Bright Angel and the Eminence Fault lines cutting across the river as it ignores those faults and proceeds to meander across the lines twice.She says the uplift should cause cracks but ignores the actual cracks that are caused by the uplift.