Re: Angles and Erosion Rates - For John Harshman


Richard Forrest wrote:
Seanpit wrote:
Richard Forrest wrote:

I have never used the term "non-overlapping warping". It is a term you
have invented in as part of a rather odd argument to deny the basics of
geology.

You said that if a structure is forced into a smaller 2D area that it
gets "thicker" and looses "surface area" even if it is warped.

Hang on.
This whole series of assertion came about because I posted a photograph
of WWW folds in an exposed section of mountainside, and you asserted
that their thickness was no greater than if they were flat.

I was talking about their perpendicular thickness that they had when
they were first starting to be folded into these non-overlapping
WWW-type folds. The surface area was not reduced by such folding and
therefore the perpendicular thickness of the layers themselves was not
reduced by such folding either.

Yes it was, because it happened deep underground where conditions of
pressure and temperature are such that warping of this type can happen.
This did *not* happen to rocks lying on the surface.

Yes, it did. The rocks forming the surface layers where also uplifted,
warped, and folded in a non-overlapping way. The rocks on the surface
most certainly did not just sit there while all of this went on
underneath. OvC says that the overlying rocks were cracked and faulted
as they were lifted. The problem with this is that cracking and
faulting increases the exposed surface area of these rocks all the more
- increasing the rate of erosion.

By the time they
reached the surface - which happened because they were uplifted and
overlaying sedimentary structures were eroded away - they occupied
1) A greater vertical thickness than before they were folded and

Not true. That's the whole point of my discussion with Richard. If
the overlying layers were eroded away so that the topography of this
warped region is now flat and even with the rest of the region that was
not compressed and warped/folded, the vertical thickness, as measured
from the flat top of the planed off overlying sheets to the bottom of
the WWW-type folded ***, will be less, at every point, compared to
those areas that were not warped or folded at all.

This is because, as John figured out "for himself", the crystalline
rock under the bottom of the *** of sediment is also folded into a
WWW-type shape. The thickest portions of the sedimentary *** that
remains will be over the depressions in the underlying crystalline rock
folds. This greatest vertical measurement will be less than the
measurement of the vertical thickness of the non-folded *** that
experienced the same period of erosion.

2) Presented a smaller area to erosion that they did before they were
folded.

This is simply not true Richard. Whatever compressed the underlying
layers into non-overlapping folds, also compressed the overlying layers
into non-overlapping folds - even if these folds are fractured, they
were still folded into the same underlying "plan area". These folds,
as illustrated in your first picture, are atop very high mountains that
were built because of extreme compression of both the underlying
crystalline rock as well as the overlying sedimentary sheets of rock.
That is why all the layers of the sedimentary sheets were also folded
all throughout their thickness - and probably cracked and faulted along
their surfaces.

Now that you realize that both weathering and erosion working at
greater rates *perpendicular* to the angled surface of a *** of rock,
don't you understand that your notion of "vertical thickness" is
irrelevant to the rate at which the entire *** of angled sedimentary
rock is removed? - completely irrelevant? It is the perpendicular
thickness of the *** and it's angle that matters - all other things
being equal.

This confuses the topographic angle of a slope with the angle of the
sediments in that slope. I don't know if you do this deliberately, or
because can't grasp the difference.

You keep saying this regardless of the number of times I point out to
you that I am not confusing topographic angles of slope with the angles
of the sedimentary layers. This is yet another straw man of your own
creation that does not represent my position in the least.

Regardless of the fact that erosion may work at different rates at
different perpendicular lines through a *** of layered sedimentary
rock, the fact remains that every perpendicular line will experience a
greater rate of erosion if all the layers were once tilted relative to
their original formation. It doesn't matter if this tilt becomes less
and less over time or if the topography no longer matches the angle of
the layers. As long as the topography remains angled, every
perpendicular point will continue to be eroded away at a faster rate
relative to it's horizontal state.

The final result? A *** of sedimentary rocks that has experience
non-overlap warping/folding will be completely removed at a faster rate
that a *** that has not experience such warping.

And, by the way, what is so different about a "fold" other than being
just a type of "warped" rock.

< snip repeats >



You started insisting that the way in which geologists measure
thickness is only the thickness of individual strata, not the formation
or structure as a whole.

I never said this. What I said was that the definition of thickness in
geometry (which you said I needed to go read up on) is the smallest
dimension of an object or "structure". That is the usual definition of
thickness. If the individual strata in a *** of sedimentary rock
layers are not overlapped or individually thickened, then their
collective perpendicular thickness and original surface area remains
the same.

http://www.nygeo.org/foldedrock.jpg

The strata on this picture are "non-overlapping".

That's true . . .

Is the vertical thickness of the rock on this picture greater, less, or
exactly the same as it was before it was folded?

If you plane off the top to a flat topography, even with the top of the
lowest depression (which is basically even with the surface of the
non-warped area), then the vertical thickness at every point of this
warped region would be either the same or less than it was before it
was folded. Ask John Harshman if this is not so.


What this means is that weathering and erosion will remove all the
layers from the ***, the entire ***, much more rapidly after
warping than before warping. That's a simple fact. Non-overlap warping
does not slow this process down as you claim.

Only if the topographic slope is the same as the slope of the strata.

You're wrong. This statement of mine is true even if the topography is
changed, by erosion, so that it no longer matches the lines of the
sedimentary layers over time.


Here is a picture of some rocks.
http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/images/0002n057.jpg

Is the topographic slope the same as the slope of the strata?

No, it isn't, but that doesn't matter. The current topography is the
result of erosion. It is not the result of the folding of the layers.

< snip >


So now you have that out of your system, perhaps you can address the
numerous instance in which you were wrong.

So are you prepared to withdraw your assertion "all that matters is the
surface area and the angle of the erosive surface"?

Why not quote what I really said instead of quoting only a portion of
what I said? This is what I really said before you deleted the first
half of the sentence:

"Given a constant amount of erosive forces (wind, rain, heat, cold,
etc), all that matters is the surface area and the angle of the erosive
surface."

Talk about quote mining and taking someone out of context in the most
deliberate way! Why build these straw men Richard? Can't find any
really significant errors so you resort to this sort of thing?

Oh, the irony!
You have repeatedly misrepresented what I have written, ignored sources
which demonstrate that statements you have made are false, ignored even
the evidence from sources to which you have posted links which show
that your assertions are inadequate or incorrect, refused to answer
questions, refused to defend your "flood theory", and generally
behaved in an utterly dishonest way.

If I have done any of these things, then why not deal with them instead
of taking something I said out of context by only quote half a
sentence? If there is no much good material to work with, why not work
with something good instead of building a straw man?

Okay, let's quote this in full:
"Given a constant amount of erosive forces (wind, rain, heat, cold,
etc), all that matters is the surface area and the angle of the erosive
surface."

This statement is factually incorrect. There are many other factors
which affect erosion rates, most importantly the nature of the rock
itself. There is also local topography:

LOL - Oh give me a break! I was talking about erosion working on a
particular *** of sedimentary rock given equality of erosive forces.
Obviously different types of rock will have different rates of
weathering/erosion! Please! Did you really understand me as trying to
counter this fact here? Sheesh! You are really reaching for straws my
man!

Oh, and differences in local topography are the result of angles and
differences in surface area. Altitude differences do not, by
themselves, change rates of erosion. They have to create some sort of
difference in weather, etc., (i.e., various erosive force changes) in
order to change erosion rates.

Here is a picture of some rocks being eroded:
http://www.dbeinla.org/PHOTOS/water8.jpg

The surface area and the angle of the erosive surface are completely
irrelevant to the rate of erosion. The cliffs are undercut by wave
action, and collapse due to gravity. The principal factors affecting
the rate of erosion are the sea level, the rate at which eroded
material is broken down and transported away by tides, the incidence of
storms and other severe weather, and the presence of softer strata
within the chalks and their exposure to erosive forces.

I never meant to indicate otherwise. You need to read for
understanding in the context of the discussion. Erosion of continents
along the edges by ocean waves and storms is yet another huge problem
for your position. Since Pangea, the continents should have been
eroded from the sides all the way through by now - several times over.
Why do the continents still fit like a giant puzzle? - especially S.
America and Africa?


The paper to which you posted a link shows that this statement is
incorrect.

You're only quoting half the sentence Richard! Come on man! . . .

I've quoted the whole sentence now, Sean, and given an very clear
instance in which it is factually incorrect. Quoting the whole
sentence made no difference to the fact that it is incorrect.

You need to learn to read in context Richard. This sort of thing only
makes you look rather desperate.

< snip rest of nonsense and deliberate misstatements >


I listed a series of deliberate mistatements you made. Evidently you
think that deliberate misrepresentation is fine when you do it.

I've not made any deliberate misstatements that I am aware of. Your
quoting me out of context and interpreting the most benign statements
in a sinister and otherwise uncalled for way is quite telling. You read
stuff into my statements that you know for a fact is not intended nor
does your interpretations of these statements reflect my true position
at all - and you know it! Some of your interpretations go directly
against what you know is my main position.

As for nonsense: Well, I posted my interpretation of your "flood
theory" a number of times, in this and other threads and in a separate
thread all of its own. I also invited you to correct any instance in
which I was misrepresenting you.

No response from you on this, Sean.

Why is this?

I'm not interested in chasing down every question or obfuscation from
everyone who has a problem with my position. I'm interested in certain
topics. Why go off trying to change the topic when you start running
into problems defending yourself? We are dealing with one very simple
problem here. I'm not interested in going on to even more complex
problems when you guys can't seem to grasp this one correctly.

RF

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

.