Amazing to get the full vertical picture. You might know that Bentonite, also known as fullers earth, mixed with a little water is very good for the skin, but don't leave it on for longer than 15 minutes.
Alan Rice · 1 August 2016
Here is a link to a Spherical Photo taken at the same location. https://goo.gl/photos/DpSDSneK3GiBmEX79
Click on the link then click on the photo to see it in interactive spherical mode.
And thanks for voting for Geology and Bentonite Clay.
-AR
Robert Byers · 1 August 2016
Slot canyons are very attractive but more interesting to me is thier origin. I have over the years read much about thier origin, thats free, and they still say its not known. It seems to be from powerful water concentrating but its swaying in and out still needs a mechanism. Of coarse as a creationist its useful to see it as from quick forces and not slow ones. Thus my interest partly.
Just Bob · 1 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Of coarse as a creationist its useful to see it as from quick forces and not slow ones.
See what you're doing there? You force yourself to see things a certain way regardless of the evidence that they're NOT that way, just because you think you have to.
Why not be open to the evidence? Follow the facts wherever they lead. It's obvious from the continued happy existence of evolutionists that God won't hit you with lightning. Will he send you to hell for believing the evidence of your own eyes -- what you see in his own creation -- rather than bits of a book written long before modern science, by people who had no idea that the world is a sphere or what stars are? Most Christians don't think he would do that -- and that life and the universe are far grander than the writers of Genesis could possibly have known.
duncan · 2 August 2016
Damn that looks dodgy! A deep "ditch" in clay How long do they last? I would NOT like to be that intrepid hiker in the picture
Alan Rice · 2 August 2016
There are many different types of slot canyons and they can be formed under different conditions. Type of bedrock, drainage area, gradient, volume & speed of the water are all factors. These canyons are formed with very low quantities of water flowing fairly slowly. Each of these bentonite canyons drainage area is in measured in square feet, not square miles. These form as small surface creeks cut through a capstone then wash out the very soft clay below.
Last week I visited a regular canyon that had been subjected to a real flash-flood a year before. The scour marks on the river bank are very evident. In places the creek bed has been carved 20 feet lower then it had been. Fast water tries to form straight channels, slow water meanders.
Alan Rice · 2 August 2016
Duncan, They are soluble, not crumbly. When they are dry they're fine.
The floor is insoluble sand that was embedded in the clay, left behind as the finer clay particles washed out.
Robert Byers · 2 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
There are many different types of slot canyons and they can be formed under different conditions. Type of bedrock, drainage area, gradient, volume & speed of the water are all factors. These canyons are formed with very low quantities of water flowing fairly slowly. Each of these bentonite canyons drainage area is in measured in square feet, not square miles. These form as small surface creeks cut through a capstone then wash out the very soft clay below.
Last week I visited a regular canyon that had been subjected to a real flash-flood a year before. The scour marks on the river bank are very evident. In places the creek bed has been carved 20 feet lower then it had been. Fast water tries to form straight channels, slow water meanders.
I have read lots about them.
While it is now small drainage areas that doesn't mean they were created by present conditions. It is a option they were created by great floodings and then later small drainage only continued to carve down.
Its fine is small volumne did create them but I understand there are problems with this.
Indeed if flash floods do so much work then why should slow water do any or be controlled in the walls?
Indeed the whole issue of meandering in these rock sediments becomes a issue.
Why meander?
There are things not yet figured out in slot canyon morphology origins.
i want fast process and so suspicious of the slow claims. However they can be interesting too.
By the way I understand slot canyon hiking can be dangerous by sudden floods. They warm about the big ones.
Alan Rice · 3 August 2016
Robert, The ones in the photo above have extremely tiny drainage areas - measured in only several hundred square feet. The canyon formation is an on-going process that can be observed in human time frames. Some slot canyons are dangerous due to flooding; the "floods" that form these are dangerous to mice.
If you are going to ignore the scientific conclusions, I would suggest you actually visit several different kinds of slot canyons, and by extension - caves, before you decide how they were formed.
Robert Byers · 3 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
Robert, The ones in the photo above have extremely tiny drainage areas - measured in only several hundred square feet. The canyon formation is an on-going process that can be observed in human time frames. Some slot canyons are dangerous due to flooding; the "floods" that form these are dangerous to mice.
If you are going to ignore the scientific conclusions, I would suggest you actually visit several different kinds of slot canyons, and by extension - caves, before you decide how they were formed.
Actually I would love to visit different types of slo canyons. I have a great interest in geomorphology.
None here in Ontario.
I know they NOW have small drainage areas BUT is that the evidence for the creation of the slot canyon.?
If its witnessed in our time then that evidence. Yet these looked quite big.
Since big floods , as said here, did carve out quite a lot then why not bigger ones in the past. !
Its the special floods and not the regular drainage area that is the key.
Whats more one needs to have the original SLOT started. It should be the inner channel of a flow , as I understand, that starts the unique cutting down.
These might be very small omnes from the great ones I read about but still mechanism should be the same.
I know in the paoers they say many things in slot canyons are not understood about origin.
As a creationist we always suspect, where there is doubt, that fast processes did the trick and not present forces which only coincedently also are in operation.
like in the famous underfit channels found in northerns places from glacial meltdown but now filled with streams/rivers that its agreed didn't create the channels. This called UNDEFIT .
Alan Rice · 4 August 2016
A slot canyon will form when and while the proper conditions exist. Those conditions very depending on many factors. Slot canyons in soft clay will be destroyed by the conditions required to form a slot canyon in sandstone or limestone. For a slot canyon to form in granite requires stable conditions over tens of thousands of years. This is rare but they do exist in parts of the American Southwest and other areas as well.
Robert Byers · 4 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
A slot canyon will form when and while the proper conditions exist. Those conditions very depending on many factors. Slot canyons in soft clay will be destroyed by the conditions required to form a slot canyon in sandstone or limestone. For a slot canyon to form in granite requires stable conditions over tens of thousands of years. This is rare but they do exist in parts of the American Southwest and other areas as well.
Thats a point. In granite or any hard rock I think it does not require thousands oy years, which never existed, but instead a mechanism for speeding things up. Slot canyons hint at this. They are created suddenly by flooding water and don't need time.
Anyways there are other problems in slot canyon morphology that indicate things are not figured out.
i think formation mechanism has not been figured out.
Alan Rice · 7 August 2016
Robert, We can measure the rate a canyon is formed at the current conditions. Since the canyon's shape ("slot" in this case) is uniform we can conclude that the conditions required to form it have been relatively stable during that time.
You assume that if it is forming now, it could have formed the same way, just hundreds or thousands of times faster in the past. That logic does not follow. Many, probably almost all, processes can not be speed up many times and still be the same process and form that same features.
I'll challenge you to create a physical model of a slot canyon using real materials and processes like scale floods. Then having created your canyon show that you can create a similar canyon at either 10 times faster or ten times slower rate.
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
Robert, We can measure the rate a canyon is formed at the current conditions. Since the canyon's shape ("slot" in this case) is uniform we can conclude that the conditions required to form it have been relatively stable during that time.
You assume that if it is forming now, it could have formed the same way, just hundreds or thousands of times faster in the past. That logic does not follow. Many, probably almost all, processes can not be speed up many times and still be the same process and form that same features.
I'll challenge you to create a physical model of a slot canyon using real materials and processes like scale floods. Then having created your canyon show that you can create a similar canyon at either 10 times faster or ten times slower rate.
I didn't realize till now you took the picture.
Anyways.
It is important about the shape of any structure as indicating its origin boundaries.
Yet in geomorphology it is classic observation that mechanisms bring like results despite how powerful they are.
So a pothole may be hugh or small but its only relative to a sudden water flow event.
In a slot canyon , as said here, a sudden water flow can carve deeply out of proportion to the usual rate.
The slot is controlling the more/faster water and is not evidence of a steady rate anymore.
So a sudden original slot canyon could be 75 % created in a few hours and then centuries only carve out the remaining 25% from a limited drainage area but unrelated to the original drainage area event.
the slot canyon is controlling things once created.
The slot canyon does not need to narrow but only in a shallow way keeps carving.
I'm not sure we disagree on anything here. Hmm.
Mechanisms in water uniquely are uniform. Its just how much power in the water flow.
I think models for slot canyons could/should be created to figure them out.
Peter Moritz · 8 August 2016
"Mechanisms in water uniquely are uniform."
If you are talking piping you maybe somewhat correct, in natural streams your argument is at least ill informed:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0252/report.pdf
"The longitudinal profile of a stream represents the simultaneous solution of eight equations involving eight unknowns."
"River flow is actually three-dimensional because the velocity depends not only on downstream distance but also on depth and transverse position. This is so because friction against the bottom and banks causes the velocity to decrease from a maximum at the surface near the middle of the stream to zero along the bottom and sides. In addition, centrifugal effects in river bends generate secondary circulations that render the velocity a full three-dimensional vector."
"The assumption that flow velocity is generally down -stream in direction is also a common simplification in the analysis of streamflow. Real streams have many eddies where the flow circulates horizontally. Streams also have areas of upwelling, roiling, and vertical circulation. While designers commonly make use of an average velocity at a given cross section, the actual velocities in the plane of a cross section vary markedly from top to bottom, side to side, and in direction, vary -ing with time and three-dimensional space.
DS · 8 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Alan Rice said:
Robert, We can measure the rate a canyon is formed at the current conditions. Since the canyon's shape ("slot" in this case) is uniform we can conclude that the conditions required to form it have been relatively stable during that time.
You assume that if it is forming now, it could have formed the same way, just hundreds or thousands of times faster in the past. That logic does not follow. Many, probably almost all, processes can not be speed up many times and still be the same process and form that same features.
I'll challenge you to create a physical model of a slot canyon using real materials and processes like scale floods. Then having created your canyon show that you can create a similar canyon at either 10 times faster or ten times slower rate.
I didn't realize till now you took the picture.
Anyways.
It is important about the shape of any structure as indicating its origin boundaries.
Yet in geomorphology it is classic observation that mechanisms bring like results despite how powerful they are.
So a pothole may be hugh or small but its only relative to a sudden water flow event.
In a slot canyon , as said here, a sudden water flow can carve deeply out of proportion to the usual rate.
The slot is controlling the more/faster water and is not evidence of a steady rate anymore.
So a sudden original slot canyon could be 75 % created in a few hours and then centuries only carve out the remaining 25% from a limited drainage area but unrelated to the original drainage area event.
the slot canyon is controlling things once created.
The slot canyon does not need to narrow but only in a shallow way keeps carving.
I'm not sure we disagree on anything here. Hmm.
Mechanisms in water uniquely are uniform. Its just how much power in the water flow.
I think models for slot canyons could/should be created to figure them out.
booby you have no biological evidence all you have is a faulty line of reasoning your wrong again
Alan Rice · 8 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Yet in geomorphology it is classic observation that mechanisms bring like results despite how powerful they are.
Robert, your line above is (pardon my phrasing) complete bullshit. The rest of the paragraph collapses after that.
By your claim, I'll get the same results on a patch of dirt whether I use a garden hose or a pressure washer. The hose will only make it muddy and perhaps wash away a little of the soil. The pressure washer will carve a crater.
Yes you will get sand ripples in water flowing at different speeds but you wont get the same size ripples.
The same is true of slot canyons, in particular the ones in the photo above; the material is just too soft. Near by, where conditions are different, there are no canyons - all of the clay has been washed away.
Robert Byers · 8 August 2016
Peter Moritz said:
"Mechanisms in water uniquely are uniform."
If you are talking piping you maybe somewhat correct, in natural streams your argument is at least ill informed:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0252/report.pdf
"The longitudinal profile of a stream represents the simultaneous solution of eight equations involving eight unknowns."
https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d30345d/books/EFM/chap15.pdf
"River flow is actually three-dimensional because the velocity depends not only on downstream distance but also on depth and transverse position. This is so because friction against the bottom and banks causes the velocity to decrease from a maximum at the surface near the middle of the stream to zero along the bottom and sides. In addition, centrifugal effects in river bends generate secondary circulations that render the velocity a full three-dimensional vector."
http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17782.wba
"The assumption that flow velocity is generally down
-stream in direction is also a common simplification in
the analysis of streamflow. Real streams have many
eddies where the flow circulates horizontally. Streams
also have areas of upwelling, roiling, and vertical
circulation. While designers commonly make use of
an average velocity at a given cross section, the actual
velocities in the plane of a cross section vary markedly
from top to bottom, side to side, and in direction, vary
-ing with time and three-dimensional space.
your points don't contradict what i said.
The mechanism in water flow does indeed include eddies and this pull and that push. Yet these are uniform for the species of mechanism.
Its not chance but real boundaries of what water flow can do.
Slot canyons look the same despite the sediment rock they are cutting through.
Its an issue of water power and then mechanism of water bumping into resistence. slot canyons are the same canyon despite the type of rock they carve through.
This demonstrating mechanism is aside from the mere water and rock.
very important.
Robert Byers · 8 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
Robert Byers said:
Yet in geomorphology it is classic observation that mechanisms bring like results despite how powerful they are.
Robert, your line above is (pardon my phrasing) complete bullshit. The rest of the paragraph collapses after that.
By your claim, I'll get the same results on a patch of dirt whether I use a garden hose or a pressure washer. The hose will only make it muddy and perhaps wash away a little of the soil. The pressure washer will carve a crater.
Yes you will get sand ripples in water flowing at different speeds but you wont get the same size ripples.
The same is true of slot canyons, in particular the ones in the photo above; the material is just too soft. Near by, where conditions are different, there are no canyons - all of the clay has been washed away.
My point is indeed what you said about ripples. thats what i mean. I mean its the same results except determinede by the power in water flow.
so one gets our tiny beach ripples of the great ripples from the missoula flood that now are grass lands.
The same mechanism is only affected by the power behind it for results.
So in bringing this principal to slot canyons one should find the slot canyons are alike despite the rock they carve through.
Then , i suggest, one doesn't know if the modern drainage area created the slot canyon opr rather is just a later addition in a minor way adding its contribution of carving downward.
i'm not sure if your slot canyon was created by the present drainage area or not.
the creationist point here is to demonstrate it would look the same whether a original powerful water flow/later minor flow created it or just the minor flow from the present drainage area.
I suspect creating slot canyons from minor drainage areas is unlikely. they needed a head start.
its a big deal to get the water to first cut down and keep going in the first feet or tens of feet.
Again we might not be disagreeing with each other here.
DS · 8 August 2016
right booby somebody calls you're bullshit and your saying they are not disagreeing with you now i am calling your bullshit
Alan Rice · 8 August 2016
Robert, I really don't know what to say to you. You are an Armchair-Athlete who has never read the playbook but thinks he can read the defense via radio play-by-play.
Until you go visit Cathedral Gorge and/or the Anza-Borrego slot canyons which are also in soft clay, and quite a few other slot canyons, your speculation about how they could form is so wrong as to be meaningless.
Think about the inner canyon of the Grand Canyon which is basically a slot canyon with hundreds of thousands of times more water then the individual slot canyons that drain into it. If those other canyons had the same water flow as the Colorado River, the would be the same size.
eric · 9 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
Robert,
I really don't know what to say to you.
I'll try one more time.
Robert Byers said:
the creationist point here is to demonstrate it would look the same whether a original powerful water flow/later minor flow created it or just the minor flow from the present drainage area.
What we are telling you is that this creationist point is wrong. Not wrong according to some theory you don't accept, but directly and regularly observed, by human eyeballs, to be wrong. Flow 100 million gallons of water across an area over 10 minutes, and it will not look the same as if you flowed 100 million gallons of water across the same area over 10 years (or 10 centuries, etc.). You will not get the same result. We can directly, empirically, "were you there yes we were" observationally tell the difference between a lot of water inundating an area over a short time and the same amount of water being delivered to the same are over a long time. Practically anyone who lives by a large river knows this through first-hand experience: when you get a year's worth of water flow in one week, the result is different from if you get that year's worth of water flow over the next year.
So when we look at a slot canyon like this, the shape and geometry and details of the walls don't just tell us approximately how much water was involved, it also tells us the rate at which the water flowed. Different rates of water flow leave different features behind, and the features left behind here suggest slow flow rate over a long period of time, not rapid flow over a short period of time.
Also importantly, what I've said above does not just apply to slot canyons but to many many features left by moving water - and again, all over the world, in many geological features, we directly observe features associated with slow flows over long periods, not rapid flows over short periods of time.
This is what we mean by your idea being complete bullflop. Your starting premise (that it doesn't matter how fast the water is delivered, the result will be the same) is just bunk. Its not true. We can directly observe with our own eyeballs that different flows lead to different outcomes, and we can then take that observation, look at this slot canyon, and conclude "this looks just like slow flow, and it doesn't look anything like rapid flow."
Robert Byers · 9 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
Robert,
I really don't know what to say to you. You are an Armchair-Athlete who has never read the playbook but thinks he can read the defense via radio play-by-play.
Until you go visit Cathedral Gorge and/or the Anza-Borrego slot canyons which are also in soft clay, and quite a few other slot canyons, your speculation about how they could form is so wrong as to be meaningless.
Think about the inner canyon of the Grand Canyon which is basically a slot canyon with hundreds of thousands of times more water then the individual slot canyons that drain into it. If those other canyons had the same water flow as the Colorado River, the would be the same size.
The concepts can be investigated without visitation.
i don't know if they say the gC is a slot canyon in its inner channel. Its welcome if so.
Yes the volume and speed of the water would duplicate things anywhere.
Creationists don't agree the colorado river created the GC by the way.
Anyways thanks for the pictures and conversation.
Slot canyons can , literally, be beautiful and for me interesting in origins.
Robert Byers · 9 August 2016
eric said:
Alan Rice said:
Robert,
I really don't know what to say to you.
I'll try one more time.
Robert Byers said:
the creationist point here is to demonstrate it would look the same whether a original powerful water flow/later minor flow created it or just the minor flow from the present drainage area.
What we are telling you is that this creationist point is wrong. Not wrong according to some theory you don't accept, but directly and regularly observed, by human eyeballs, to be wrong. Flow 100 million gallons of water across an area over 10 minutes, and it will not look the same as if you flowed 100 million gallons of water across the same area over 10 years (or 10 centuries, etc.). You will not get the same result. We can directly, empirically, "were you there yes we were" observationally tell the difference between a lot of water inundating an area over a short time and the same amount of water being delivered to the same are over a long time. Practically anyone who lives by a large river knows this through first-hand experience: when you get a year's worth of water flow in one week, the result is different from if you get that year's worth of water flow over the next year.
So when we look at a slot canyon like this, the shape and geometry and details of the walls don't just tell us approximately how much water was involved, it also tells us the rate at which the water flowed. Different rates of water flow leave different features behind, and the features left behind here suggest slow flow rate over a long period of time, not rapid flow over a short period of time.
Also importantly, what I've said above does not just apply to slot canyons but to many many features left by moving water - and again, all over the world, in many geological features, we directly observe features associated with slow flows over long periods, not rapid flows over short periods of time.
This is what we mean by your idea being complete bullflop. Your starting premise (that it doesn't matter how fast the water is delivered, the result will be the same) is just bunk. Its not true. We can directly observe with our own eyeballs that different flows lead to different outcomes, and we can then take that observation, look at this slot canyon, and conclude "this looks just like slow flow, and it doesn't look anything like rapid flow."
i disagree. the water flow in your example would have to be carving into rock. not just dirt.
Nobody sees that happening today except on the minor drainage we now have.
It is commonly said the size of the water flow creates alike features in rock and its only a difference of size of the water flow.
Your making a mistake here.
This is the big deal in megaflood evidence from the melting glacial lakes in the northern areas. including the missoula flood.
there is a excellent NOVA episode on this flood demonstrating rock carving was the same in results and it was only a issue of size.
Watch your info source.
It does matter about velocity however in rock form is dominated bymechanisms within the water. Not how much or little.
Thats whats interesting about slot canyons or lots of like things.
Peter Moritz · 10 August 2016
"This is the big deal in megaflood evidence from the melting glacial lakes in the northern areas"
So you admit to ice sheet buildup with subsequent de-glaciation and the forming of glacial lakes? "During the colder episodesâreferred to as glacial periodsâlarge ice sheets at least 4 km thick at their maximum also existed in Europe, North America, and Siberia" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
How long do you estimate the buildup of 4km ice sheet would take? 40 days to fit within the biblical narrative of a world wide flood? Unfortunately, your referencing the possibility of glacial lakes which in the immensity of the drainage as indicated by the: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods is utterly in contrast to the biblical account where an ice-age within its time frame is impossible and unmentioned. Are you becoming a heretic now to defend another untenable position?
"It is commonly said the size of the water flow creates alike features in rock and its only a difference of size of the water flow. "
Again showing that your comprehension is severely impeded: http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0252/report.pdf
âThe longitudinal profile of a stream represents the simultaneous solution of eight equations involving eight unknowns.â
Does that not tell you if channel is a solution of 8 different equations with eight unknowns then water flow volume and speed alone has little to do with the final stream features?
eric · 10 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
i disagree. the water flow in your example would have to be carving into rock. not just dirt.
Nobody sees that happening today except on the minor drainage we now have.
Robert, you can see that happening whenever you want. Go on youtube and search for "water carving rock"; you'll find all sorts of vendor videos for water jet technologies being used to carve into rock. And to make the point again, if you delivered the exact same amount of water to the exact same surface but in a slow drip, you wouldn't get the features you get from these jets.
Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2016
eric said:
Robert Byers said:
i disagree. the water flow in your example would have to be carving into rock. not just dirt.
Nobody sees that happening today except on the minor drainage we now have.
Robert, you can see that happening whenever you want. Go on youtube and search for "water carving rock"; you'll find all sorts of vendor videos for water jet technologies being used to carve into rock. And to make the point again, if you delivered the exact same amount of water to the exact same surface but in a slow drip, you wouldn't get the features you get from these jets.
There are whole industries devoted to water cutting.
Velocity and the type of material being cut have a lot to do with how a finished cut looks.
It is sometimes amazing how some people can exist in this world and not be aware of anything going on around them. Living completely inside oneâs head is a real bummer. But then, how would they know?
eric · 10 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
It is sometimes amazing how some people can exist in this world and not be aware of anything going on around them. Living completely inside oneâs head is a real bummer. But then, how would they know?
Well, at least he kind of admitted that we can tell the difference between a sudden flood and long-term flow when it comes to its effects on dirt. Though I'm guessing the implications of that admission will go unconsidered.
TomS · 10 August 2016
It is not so much that a person is not knowledgeable on a subject.
It is that they talk as if they know what they are talking about.
Robert Byers · 10 August 2016
Peter Moritz said:
"This is the big deal in megaflood evidence from the melting glacial lakes in the northern areas"
So you admit to ice sheet buildup with subsequent de-glaciation and the forming of glacial lakes?
"During the colder episodesâreferred to as glacial periodsâlarge ice sheets at least 4 km thick at their maximum also existed in Europe, North America, and Siberia"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
How long do you estimate the buildup of 4km ice sheet would take? 40 days to fit within the biblical narrative of a world wide flood?
Unfortunately, your referencing the possibility of glacial lakes which in the immensity of the drainage as indicated by the: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods is utterly in contrast to the biblical account where an ice-age within its time frame is impossible and unmentioned. Are you becoming a heretic now to defend another untenable position?
"It is commonly said the size of the water flow creates alike features in rock and its only a difference of size of the water flow. "
Again showing that your comprehension is severely impeded:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0252/report.pdf
âThe longitudinal profile of a stream represents the simultaneous solution of eight equations involving eight unknowns.â
Does that not tell you if channel is a solution of 8 different equations with eight unknowns then water flow volume and speed alone has little to do with the final stream features?
No! Its not that mysterious or unpredictable. In fact a sudden driving water flow would eliminate other options. Thats about modern slow streams etc.
Robert Byers · 10 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
eric said:
Robert Byers said:
i disagree. the water flow in your example would have to be carving into rock. not just dirt.
Nobody sees that happening today except on the minor drainage we now have.
Robert, you can see that happening whenever you want. Go on youtube and search for "water carving rock"; you'll find all sorts of vendor videos for water jet technologies being used to carve into rock. And to make the point again, if you delivered the exact same amount of water to the exact same surface but in a slow drip, you wouldn't get the features you get from these jets.
There are whole industries devoted to water cutting.
Velocity and the type of material being cut have a lot to do with how a finished cut looks.
It is sometimes amazing how some people can exist in this world and not be aware of anything going on around them. Living completely inside oneâs head is a real bummer. But then, how would they know?
Velocity is kING indeed and rock type matters.
However this is unrelated to geomorphological concepts in nature.
Mechanism in water flow does create like formations regardless of rock type. The pressure of the water is king.
If rock type determined formastions in sculpting of rock from water there would be no classification for forms.
If velocity was without boundaries there would be no classification of formations in rock carved by water.
Your trying, it seems, to overthrow fluid mechanics!!
Peter Moritz · 11 August 2016
It is really not fruitful to discuss complex systems like natutral stream development with one who is hellbent on simplistic approaches that are not applicable to the natural environment. like ignoring topography, stream gradient, erodibility, rock composition, hardness, etc.
"Mechanism in water flow does create like formations regardless of rock type"
"Streams erode because they have the ability to pick up rock fragments and transport them to a new location. The size of the fragments that can be transported depends on the velocity of the stream and whether the flow is laminar or turbulent. Turbulent flow can keep fragments in suspension longer than laminar flow.
Streams can also erode by undercutting their banks resulting in mass-wasting processes like slumps or slides. When the undercut material falls into the stream, the fragments can be transported away by the stream.
Streams can cut deeper into their channels if the region is uplifted or if there is a local change in base level. As they cut deeper into their channels the stream removes the material that once made up the channel bottom and sides.
Although slow, as rocks move along the stream bottom and collide with one another, abrasion of the rocks occurs, making smaller fragments that can then be transported by the stream.
Finally, because some rocks and minerals are easily dissolved in water, dissolution also occurs, resulting in dissolved ions being transported by the stream."
" A Canyon has steep sidewalls that form cliffs. Whether or valley or canyon is formed depends on the rate of erosion and strength of the rocks. In general, slow downcutting and weak, easily erodable rocks results in valleys and rapid downcutting in stronger rocks results in canyons. Because geologic processes stack strong and weak rocks, such stratigraphic variation often yields a stair step profile of the canyon walls, as seen in the Grand Canyon. Strong rocks yield vertical cliffs, whereas weak rocks produce more gently sloped canyon walls."
Just to show that simple fluid mecanics are not enough to model flow patterns in actual streams:
"Numerical simulations using 2-D and 3-D CFD models were conducted to assess their ability to reproduce micro- and meso-scale complex ï¬ow patterns triggered by the presence of a hemisphere or boulders at various discharges. Com- pared to measured data, results show that the 3-D model, coupled with RSM turbulence closure, can provide a more satisfactory prediction of the reverse velocities and pre- dominant circulation patterns near the ï¬ow obstructions"
Peter Moritz · 11 August 2016
It is really not fruitful to discuss complex systems like natural stream development with one who is hellbent on simplistic approaches that are not applicable to the natural environment. like ignoring topography, stream gradient, erodibility, rock composition, hardness, etc.
"Mechanism in water flow does create like formations regardless of rock type"
"Streams erode because they have the ability to pick up rock fragments and transport them to a new location. The size of the fragments that can be transported depends on the velocity of the stream and whether the flow is laminar or turbulent. Turbulent flow can keep fragments in suspension longer than laminar flow.
Streams can also erode by undercutting their banks resulting in mass-wasting processes like slumps or slides. When the undercut material falls into the stream, the fragments can be transported away by the stream.
Streams can cut deeper into their channels if the region is uplifted or if there is a local change in base level. As they cut deeper into their channels the stream removes the material that once made up the channel bottom and sides.
Although slow, as rocks move along the stream bottom and collide with one another, abrasion of the rocks occurs, making smaller fragments that can then be transported by the stream.
Finally, because some rocks and minerals are easily dissolved in water, dissolution also occurs, resulting in dissolved ions being transported by the stream."
" A Canyon has steep sidewalls that form cliffs. Whether or valley or canyon is formed depends on the rate of erosion and strength of the rocks. In general, slow downcutting and weak, easily erodable rocks results in valleys and rapid downcutting in stronger rocks results in canyons. Because geologic processes stack strong and weak rocks, such stratigraphic variation often yields a stair step profile of the canyon walls, as seen in the Grand Canyon. Strong rocks yield vertical cliffs, whereas weak rocks produce more gently sloped canyon walls."
Just to show that simple fluid mecanics are not enough to model flow patterns in actual streams:
"Numerical simulations using 2-D and 3-D CFD models were conducted to assess their ability to reproduce micro- and meso-scale complex ï¬ow patterns triggered by the presence of a hemisphere or boulders at various discharges. Com- pared to measured data, results show that the 3-D model, coupled with RSM turbulence closure, can provide a more satisfactory prediction of the reverse velocities and pre- dominant circulation patterns near the ï¬ow obstructions"
Peter Moritz · 11 August 2016
sorry for the double posting. That shit happens when edit function does not exist.
eric · 11 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Velocity is kING indeed and rock type matters.
However this is unrelated to geomorphological concepts in nature.
Why is it unrelated? Do you think the water and the rock are magically aware that they are in a human-engineered situation and that they decide to act differently? The exact same laws of physics operate regardless of whether we're talking geysers, flash floods or machine nozzles. Where different situations are analogous, water will behave analogously, regardless of whether we're talking a human engineered system or not.
Mechanism in water flow does create like formations regardless of rock type.
No, it doesn't.
Those formations wouldn't exist if water flow affected all types of rock the same.
Matt Young · 11 August 2016
That shit happens when edit function does not exist.
I do not know why you got a double post, but you can always "Preview" your comment before posting it. At any rate, thank you for the authoritative discussion!
eric · 11 August 2016
Matt Young said:
That shit happens when edit function does not exist.
I do not know why you got a double post, but you can always "Preview" your comment before posting it. At any rate, thank you for the authoritative discussion!
I have been having the problem of both the 'preview' and 'submit' button taking an extremely long time to work (long enough that I go do other things, just leaving the window open in the background). I don't know about Peter, but I have been extremely tempted to close the window and just resubmit the same message in a new window rather than wait. My guess is doing this might result in a double post because the original message is going through, it's just not registering as going through on the sending system.
gnome de net · 11 August 2016
eric said:
Matt Young said:
That shit happens when edit function does not exist.
I do not know why you got a double post, but you can always "Preview" your comment before posting it. At any rate, thank you for the authoritative discussion!
I have been having the problem of both the 'preview' and 'submit' button taking an extremely long time to work (long enough that I go do other things, just leaving the window open in the background). I don't know about Peter, but I have been extremely tempted to close the window and just resubmit the same message in a new window rather than wait. My guess is doing this might result in a double post because the original message is going through, it's just not registering as going through on the sending system.
At some point I just F5/Refresh the page and voila!, my post has posted.
gnome de net · 11 August 2016
eric said:
Matt Young said:
That shit happens when edit function does not exist.
I do not know why you got a double post, but you can always "Preview" your comment before posting it. At any rate, thank you for the authoritative discussion!
I have been having the problem of both the 'preview' and 'submit' button taking an extremely long time to work (long enough that I go do other things, just leaving the window open in the background). I don't know about Peter, but I have been extremely tempted to close the window and just resubmit the same message in a new window rather than wait. My guess is doing this might result in a double post because the original message is going through, it's just not registering as going through on the sending system.
At some point I just F5/Refresh the page and voila!, my post has posted.
gnome de net · 11 August 2016
My post usually posts!
TomS · 11 August 2016
eric said:
Matt Young said:
That shit happens when edit function does not exist.
I do not know why you got a double post, but you can always "Preview" your comment before posting it. At any rate, thank you for the authoritative discussion!
I have been having the problem of both the 'preview' and 'submit' button taking an extremely long time to work (long enough that I go do other things, just leaving the window open in the background). I don't know about Peter, but I have been extremely tempted to close the window and just resubmit the same message in a new window rather than wait. My guess is doing this might result in a double post because the original message is going through, it's just not registering as going through on the sending system.
I have the same experience.
Scott F · 11 August 2016
Matt Young said:
That shit happens when edit function does not exist.
I do not know why you got a double post, but you can always "Preview" your comment before posting it. At any rate, thank you for the authoritative discussion!
If I'm going to write a longish comment, I usually do it "off line". Hit "Reply", copy out the result to your favorite text editor (not word processor), write lots, then cut and paste back in. Sometimes I'll have to repeat hitting the "Reply" button, and then paste my stuff back in.
Robert Byers · 11 August 2016
Peter Moritz said:
It is really not fruitful to discuss complex systems like natural stream development with one who is hellbent on simplistic approaches that are not applicable to the natural environment. like ignoring topography, stream gradient, erodibility, rock composition, hardness, etc.
"Mechanism in water flow does create like formations regardless of rock type"
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/streams.htm
"Streams erode because they have the ability to pick up rock fragments and transport them to a new location. The size of the fragments that can be transported depends on the velocity of the stream and whether the flow is laminar or turbulent. Turbulent flow can keep fragments in suspension longer than laminar flow.
Streams can also erode by undercutting their banks resulting in mass-wasting processes like slumps or slides. When the undercut material falls into the stream, the fragments can be transported away by the stream.
Streams can cut deeper into their channels if the region is uplifted or if there is a local change in base level. As they cut deeper into their channels the stream removes the material that once made up the channel bottom and sides.
Although slow, as rocks move along the stream bottom and collide with one another, abrasion of the rocks occurs, making smaller fragments that can then be transported by the stream.
Finally, because some rocks and minerals are easily dissolved in water, dissolution also occurs, resulting in dissolved ions being transported by the stream."
" A Canyon has steep sidewalls that form cliffs. Whether or valley or canyon is formed depends on the rate of erosion and strength of the rocks. In general, slow downcutting and weak, easily erodable rocks results in valleys and rapid downcutting in stronger rocks results in canyons.
Because geologic processes stack strong and weak rocks, such stratigraphic variation often yields a stair step profile of the canyon walls, as seen in the Grand Canyon. Strong rocks yield vertical cliffs, whereas weak rocks produce more gently sloped canyon walls."
Just to show that simple fluid mecanics are not enough to model flow patterns in actual streams:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223761225_Application_of_two-_and_three-dimensional_computational_fluid_dynamics_models_to_complex_ecological_stream_flows
"Numerical simulations using 2-D and 3-D CFD models were
conducted to assess their ability to reproduce micro- and
meso-scale complex ï¬ow patterns triggered by the presence
of a hemisphere or boulders at various discharges. Com-
pared to measured data, results show that the 3-D model,
coupled with RSM turbulence closure, can provide a more
satisfactory prediction of the reverse velocities and pre-
dominant circulation patterns near the ï¬ow obstructions"
Fine. I know all this. This is geomorphology. The water itself, including creating eddies, creates like formations which coupled with the power of the water can make hugh potholes or tiny ones. YET the pothole is created by the same mechanism in the water flow.
Yes it matters it hit hard rock and not softer rock which would be plucked away or if very soft crumbled.
My points are right.
Robert Byers · 11 August 2016
eric said:
Robert Byers said:
Velocity is kING indeed and rock type matters.
However this is unrelated to geomorphological concepts in nature.
Why is it unrelated? Do you think the water and the rock are magically aware that they are in a human-engineered situation and that they decide to act differently? The exact same laws of physics operate regardless of whether we're talking geysers, flash floods or machine nozzles. Where different situations are analogous, water will behave analogously, regardless of whether we're talking a human engineered system or not.
Mechanism in water flow does create like formations regardless of rock type.
No, it doesn't.
Those formations wouldn't exist if water flow affected all types of rock the same.
its a bigger subject.
In rocks are strong enough strength, for example, one will get potholes, scallops, and many formations.
Depending on the water flow power one can get giant potholes or tiny ones. YET its the same mechanism within the water flow creating the pothole for both. Thev rock type doesn't make a difference, after crossing a hardness threshold.
If not that hard probably plucking takes place or if very weak mere crumbling.
Yet these also are formations from mechanisms in the water flow.
it is equations and is not a roll of the dice.
So a slot canyon is also under a equation of creation . I'm quite sure the type of rock doesn't matter as long as not so soft as to crumble. Seeing the great curves in this one tells me its pretty strong. not weak.
Is it possible its very weak and has a historic/present small drainage area? I doubt it. it probably was created suddenly and only later does trivial work.
i'm not sure with these as the guy was saying they were very weak. A rare thing.
my whole point was about history not proven by present history but mechanism would bring like result from a episodic flood in the past. the present tiny drainage unrelated to its origin.
Mike Elzinga · 13 August 2016
What kind of camera and lens system was used to take this picture?
It appears that the picture was taken with a lens system that scanned through a 90 degree angle to capture the person standing, and then scanning upward all the way to looking directly up into the sky.
Is this a panoramic scanning camera?
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
For anyone interested. A good paper/summery/ideas about slot canyons, that is free, is "Fluvial erosion of physically modelled abrasion-dominated slot canyons" by Carissa Carter/Robert Anderson.2006 A good summery of ideas on them and and experiments to try to figure them out.
Alan Rice · 20 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
What kind of camera and lens system was used to take this picture?
.....
Is this a panoramic scanning camera?
Sorry for the delay, I've been in the field for 10 days.
This was taken with a Nexus 5X in Panorama mode.
Alan Rice · 20 August 2016
Robert, A little assignment for you, if you are up to it, about a specific slot canyon. Look up a place called "Hercules Gap, Nevada" (6.5 miles north of Ely). Be sure to look at a few photos and on a topo map. Then describe in a few sentences how you think it formed and over what time period (when and how long).
Mike Elzinga · 20 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
Mike Elzinga said:
What kind of camera and lens system was used to take this picture?
.....
Is this a panoramic scanning camera?
Sorry for the delay, I've been in the field for 10 days.
This was taken with a Nexus 5X in Panorama mode.
Thank you for that information. That Nexus 5X does a very nice job for how compact it is.
Robert Byers · 20 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
Robert,
A little assignment for you, if you are up to it, about a specific slot canyon. Look up a place called "Hercules Gap, Nevada" (6.5 miles north of Ely).
Be sure to look at a few photos and on a topo map. Then describe in a few sentences how you think it formed and over what time period (when and how long).
What I looked up on google was not very good.
I would know anything about it. Why should I?
If its from nature then it probably formed quickly but possibly in a special case a slow drip from a small water sorce slowly cut down. However it probably was like the rest. Fast and furious and finished in short order and later minor carving.
Alan Rice · 20 August 2016
Mike Elzinga said:
Thank you for that information. That Nexus 5X does a very nice job for how compact it is.
It does a great job of Spherical photos. Here is a link to some I've shot: https://goo.gl/photos/C1PA9mu7mkJs4nNaA
Alan Rice · 20 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
What I looked up on google was not very good.
I would know anything about it. Why should I?
If its from nature then it probably formed quickly but possibly in a special case a slow drip from a small water sorce slowly cut down. However it probably was like the rest. Fast and furious and finished in short order and later minor carving.
If you looked up Hercules Gap on a topo map and thought about it for a little while you would realize that it could not have formed fast. There is a geographical anomaly that shows it must have been slow. Look for it, and think about it. That is a plenty big hint. If that little research is beyond your skills (and it will likely stump 8 of 10) you really don't have any room to speculate on any geological features.
You have presented nothing but your own wild speculation that ANY slot canyon has formed fast.
Robert Byers · 21 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
Robert Byers said:
What I looked up on google was not very good.
I would know anything about it. Why should I?
If its from nature then it probably formed quickly but possibly in a special case a slow drip from a small water sorce slowly cut down. However it probably was like the rest. Fast and furious and finished in short order and later minor carving.
If you looked up Hercules Gap on a topo map and thought about it for a little while you would realize that it could not have formed fast. There is a geographical anomaly that shows it must have been slow. Look for it, and think about it. That is a plenty big hint. If that little research is beyond your skills (and it will likely stump 8 of 10) you really don't have any room to speculate on any geological features.
You have presented nothing but your own wild speculation that ANY slot canyon has formed fast.
I don't do topo maps indeed. Yet one can speculate on formation and process. Not related.
Slot canyon would be just another formation done quickly. Easily they could be made quick. I'm not saying they all were or any.
However I think its a better idea especially to start the canyon.
I don't think there are small slot canyons everywhere or halfs/quarters etc. If it was slow water seepage then there should be more slot canyons of tiny sizes/halfs/quarters etc and a few gigantic ones.
What was the anomaly that impressed you as to limiting the amount of water for this slot canyon? There was no written info on goggle.
Did you read the paper I pointed out?
Again the slot canyon formation can be from mechanism unrelated to the amount of water. SO any amount could quickly do the canyon and then error be made by later tiny water seepage.
In fact some unique features in the slot canyon would rule out water amount as being important.
DS · 21 August 2016
spectacular specified speculation
Alan Rice · 22 August 2016
Robert, Do you understand that a slot canyon is formed by erosion primarily to the floor (or face in rare cases like above) of the canyon, and little to none on the sides? Your statements of "Any amount" of water doesn't work since soon the erosion will be not limited to the floor. Erosion of the sides will widen it out so that it is no longer a slot.
By the way, there are underground slot canyons in caves. Many of these are physically restricted by the amount of water than can enter.
Also, you should learn how to read a topo map. They are useful for a lot more than geology.
Matt Young · 22 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
For anyone interested. A good paper/summery/ideas about slot canyons, that is free, is "Fluvial erosion of physically modelled abrasion-dominated slot canyons" by Carissa Carter/Robert Anderson.2006
A good summery of ideas on them and and experiments to try to figure them out.
Gaythia Weis for unknown reasons cannot log in, and she has asked me to post the following response:
Interesting choice of researchers to cite. INSAAR's Robert Anderson does quite a bit of research on geochronology, using cosmogenic radionuclide methods.
See: http://instaar.colorado.edu/~andersrs/research.html#geochronology
And note that Ma means millions of years ago.
For example:
Bedrock incision by fluvial processes, one of the least-understood geomorphic processes, has been a focus of research for some years, starting in the Fremont badlands of Utah, and moving to the Indus River in Pakistan and the Wind River in Wyoming. Anderson and his graduate students have tackled the rates of incision and the processes by which the incision is carried out using a combination of newly developed cosmogenic radionuclide dating techniques, field deployment of datalogger-based instrumentation, and modeling. Former graduate student Greg Stock utilized sediments and speleothems in caves along the western metamorphic edge of the Sierran batholiths as a means of documenting rates of incision over many hundreds of thousands of years. The incision history reveals very high erosion rates from 3 - 1.5 Ma, followed by much lower rates. we interpret these to reflect the passage of a knickzone past the cave sites, having been incited by tilting of the range prior to 3 Ma. The mechanism for tilting is debated, but may result from foundering of an eclogitic dense root from the range that coincides with a change int he natrue of volcanism. In addition, working with former graduate student Catherine Riihimaki and former post-doc Liz Safran, Anderson has modeled the incision of major streams issuing from the Colorado Front Range, showing that these are in a state of transient response to the exhumation of the adjacent edge of the Great Plains.
Carissa Carter is no longer a geologist, but is apparently enjoying life:
http://www.snowflyzone.com/about-2/
DS · 22 August 2016
Doesn't matter/ As long a booby can imagine that it could be formed in a few years, that's good enough for him.
Unless of course no one is actually trying to convince him of anything anyways.
Robert Byers · 22 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
Robert,
Do you understand that a slot canyon is formed by erosion primarily to the floor (or face in rare cases like above) of the canyon, and little to none on the sides? Your statements of "Any amount" of water doesn't work since soon the erosion will be not limited to the floor. Erosion of the sides will widen it out so that it is no longer a slot.
By the way, there are underground slot canyons in caves. Many of these are physically restricted by the amount of water than can enter.
Also, you should learn how to read a topo map. They are useful for a lot more than geology.
Yes. And thats the interesting thing. It carves down and not sidewys. indeed sideways is a special thing that researchers are unsure about but speculate as in the paper i cited..
I speculate the reason for this is because it was a sudden fast event. Possibly a special kind of thalweg. (sp).
The YEC angle here is that its not just sediment and water flow plus time but that there is a physics issue going on.
In fact they speculate the walls undulate in order to carve downward. Yet if so I think it should mean its fast acting and not taking its time.
Anyways it needs more thought and discovery i think.
Robert Byers · 22 August 2016
Matt Young said:
Robert Byers said:
For anyone interested. A good paper/summery/ideas about slot canyons, that is free, is "Fluvial erosion of physically modelled abrasion-dominated slot canyons" by Carissa Carter/Robert Anderson.2006
A good summery of ideas on them and and experiments to try to figure them out.
Gaythia Weis for unknown reasons cannot log in, and she has asked me to post the following response:
Interesting choice of researchers to cite. INSAAR's Robert Anderson does quite a bit of research on geochronology, using cosmogenic radionuclide methods.
See: http://instaar.colorado.edu/~andersrs/research.html#geochronology
And note that Ma means millions of years ago.
For example:
Bedrock incision by fluvial processes, one of the least-understood geomorphic processes, has been a focus of research for some years, starting in the Fremont badlands of Utah, and moving to the Indus River in Pakistan and the Wind River in Wyoming. Anderson and his graduate students have tackled the rates of incision and the processes by which the incision is carried out using a combination of newly developed cosmogenic radionuclide dating techniques, field deployment of datalogger-based instrumentation, and modeling. Former graduate student Greg Stock utilized sediments and speleothems in caves along the western metamorphic edge of the Sierran batholiths as a means of documenting rates of incision over many hundreds of thousands of years. The incision history reveals very high erosion rates from 3 - 1.5 Ma, followed by much lower rates. we interpret these to reflect the passage of a knickzone past the cave sites, having been incited by tilting of the range prior to 3 Ma. The mechanism for tilting is debated, but may result from foundering of an eclogitic dense root from the range that coincides with a change int he natrue of volcanism. In addition, working with former graduate student Catherine Riihimaki and former post-doc Liz Safran, Anderson has modeled the incision of major streams issuing from the Colorado Front Range, showing that these are in a state of transient response to the exhumation of the adjacent edge of the Great Plains.
Carissa Carter is no longer a geologist, but is apparently enjoying life:
http://www.snowflyzone.com/about-2/
He does indeed do many subjects.
The link agrees with me that bedrock incision is least understood. Thats what I know and am interested in.
Rates of incision and processes are open to investigation.
It was mentioned here that there were periods of high erosion rate and lower rates later.
The timelines are not mine but the principal is what I suggested for the slotcanyons.
There is lots to figure out and i think it isn't figured out because they don't include the option of very fast carving and mechanisms to justify this. Possibly new mechanisms.
Alan Rice · 23 August 2016
It is amazing how easy it is for you to misunderstand or ignore any facts which are inconvenient for you.
Limestone has strengths of 4000-30,000+ PSI. By you estimation, this must not have always been the case (if canyons can form fast). When did it get hard? It must have been sometime not long after the flood. Is it still getting harder? What changed?
If you are so interested, you should do some physical modeling. I can suggest many different ways: like sugar-cubes and hot water or dirt and a pressure-washer (my personal favorite).
eric · 23 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
I would know anything about it. Why should I?
And
I don't do topo maps indeed. Yet one can speculate on formation and process.
You can speculate, but if you choose not to consider the data and you 'don't do' different types of data, and because of that chosen ignorance your speculation is wildly inconsistent with the evidence, then nobody's going to give your speculations any credibility.
Think of it as walking into a room with me wearing a red shirt. You grandly announce to the world that I'm wearing a blue shirt. The other people in the room point out 'but look at eric's shirt, it's red,' and you respond: 'I dont't know anything about eric's shirt. Why should I? I don't do looking. Yet one can speculate on shirt color.' That would be ridiculous, wouldn't it? You're doing the same thing here.
You have to look. And you have to allow what you see to modify your preconceived conclusions, if that's where the evidence leads. Choosing not to look or ignoring the result will not help you make your point, instead it undermines your credibility.
Depending on the water flow power one can get giant potholes or tiny ones. YET its the same mechanism within the water flow creating the pothole for both. Thev rock type doesn't make a difference, after crossing a hardness threshold.
But obviously it does, because rocks of different hardness will erode at different rates, correct? Even you seem to acknowledge this.
So a slot canyon is also under a equation of creation.
Are you saying that slot canyons formed under divine rules that don't operate in the world today? That is one theological way out of the problem of evidence for an old Earth. It carries with it some other theological problems, but if that's the way you want to go, we can at least stop arguing about mechanisms because such an argument becomes pointless if you're going to invoke divine miracles.
I'm quite sure the type of rock doesn't matter as long as not so soft as to crumble. Seeing the great curves in this one tells me its pretty strong. not weak.
Instead of guessing, you could just read the caption. Here, let me help you: "Slot canyon in soft bentonite clay"
DS · 23 August 2016
Told you so.
Robert Byers · 23 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
It is amazing how easy it is for you to misunderstand or ignore any facts which are inconvenient for you.
Limestone has strengths of 4000-30,000+ PSI. By you estimation, this must not have always been the case (if canyons can form fast). When did it get hard? It must have been sometime not long after the flood. Is it still getting harder? What changed?
If you are so interested, you should do some physical modeling. I can suggest many different ways: like sugar-cubes and hot water or dirt and a pressure-washer (my personal favorite).
If i follow you. Yes the limestone was rock soon after deposition by creationist models.
Thats not the point here.
the thing to introduce is physics. The old geology was about the composition of the rock, timelines, and then a little physics of flow. This was wrong. The important thing was the physics. then somewhat the rock type, and timelines irrelevant.
anything in nature can be reproduced, in rock formations, fy sudden fast mechanism.
this is a yEC idea and is also the new ideas in geomorphology. especially in northern areas where megafloods, from melting ice age, are seen as NOW as having creating the landscape and the great vedrock deformation.
Thats the only point I have about slot canyons.
the option, not always demanding, for their creation coming instantly.
indeed in the post presented to me, above, process is still not understood and timelines for carving etc are not uniform.
Alan Rice · 24 August 2016
The basic process is well understood by everyone but you.
Mega floods have never produced a slot canyon. Disagree? Show me one. Don't speculate or point to a paper you don't understand, give me a lat and lon.
Earlier this evening I was looking back through some photos I took a month ago while hiking through a canyon that had suffered a flash flood last year. The damage happened fast and the scars are the opposite of a slot canyon.
Robert Byers · 24 August 2016
Alan Rice said:
The basic process is well understood by everyone but you.
Mega floods have never produced a slot canyon. Disagree? Show me one. Don't speculate or point to a paper you don't understand, give me a lat and lon.
Earlier this evening I was looking back through some photos I took a month ago while hiking through a canyon that had suffered a flash flood last year. The damage happened fast and the scars are the opposite of a slot canyon.
I agree mega floods didn't ever create slot canyons. it was just a example of how flooding waters carve up the landscape instantly.
A slotcanyon is from a more direct water flow.
The canyon needs a mechanism and i'm not saying its from falsh floods. Indeed I think it might be the thalweg(sp) issue but maybe just concentration of a limited flow.
Anyways the point is that physics, rock type, is the main point. Not rock type , time, and water.
DS · 24 August 2016
i speculate that it took millions and millions of years so there YEC us YUC
Scott F · 24 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
So a slot canyon is also under a equation of creation . I'm quite sure the type of rock doesn't matter as long as not so soft as to crumble. Seeing the great curves in this one tells me its pretty strong. not weak.
So, from what you understand, there is no difference between clay and granite. They are both equally strong, and both can eroded equally by the same flow of water.
Is that what you're saying?
Scott F · 24 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
The YEC angle here is that its not just sediment and water flow plus time but that there is a physics issue going on.
In fact they speculate the walls undulate in order to carve downward.
Are you saying that the walls of the canyon move in order to help the water carve the canyon?
Alan Rice · 25 August 2016
I think it's called "Intelligent Physics". All Robert knows is could not have happened over a long period of time. Anything and everything else is up for grabs.
I would like to continue to watch Robert twist and duck, but I'm headed back into the field for a week or so. Mid August through Mid October I'm out for a week and in for a week. I'll read PT when I can but won't be able to post.
richard09 · 25 August 2016
I'm not any sort off biologist, so sometimes the discussions of genetics and related stuff goes by me at quite a lick. I have to say, I'm also not any sort of geologist, but this discussion has been a real eye-opener. I've seen numerous instances where Mr Byers has been told that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but this time, wow. It's crystal clear not only that he's talking complete bullshit, but also isn't even capable of understanding how stupid it sounds. Even a complete layman like me can understand the idea of a slow trickle very gradually cutting down into soft dirt, while any sort of fast flow will have a completely different result. That he can't - won't - see it, is mind-boggling.
Robert Byers · 25 August 2016
Scott F said:
Robert Byers said:
So a slot canyon is also under a equation of creation . I'm quite sure the type of rock doesn't matter as long as not so soft as to crumble. Seeing the great curves in this one tells me its pretty strong. not weak.
So, from what you understand, there is no difference between clay and granite. They are both equally strong, and both can eroded equally by the same flow of water.
Is that what you're saying?
Nothing about walls moving.
Clay/granite foes matter relative to the power of the water. Yet the same formations will be made due to physics .
So the rock type, timeline, does not affect the physics of water flow.
A pothole can be made instantly on both . HOWEVER in the granite the water power must be stronger .
SO in slot canyons , and a correction I think to ideas proposed, it will look the same regardless of the rock type. The physics is the same. Yet the rock type will demand a greater/lesser flow to do the same job.
Its not just any waterflow will do the samr result. SO a trickle is useless. SO I questioned the concept that a small drainage area did the trick and suggested a original great drainage did most of it and later the little is doing touchup. This also means timelines are not witnessed by what the slotcanyon looks like.
its all just water velocity, physics, rock type. No time in the equation.
eric · 25 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
Clay/granite foes matter relative to the power of the water. Yet the same formations will be made due to physics
Here is a granite slot canyon.
Here is a clay slot canyon.
Do they look like the same formation to you? You can't spot the differences?
A pothole can be made instantly on both . HOWEVER in the granite the water power must be stronger .
SO in slot canyons , and a correction I think to ideas proposed, it will look the same regardless of the rock type.
Nope, you thought wrong. Just click on the links and look. They don't look the same. You're just. Plain. Wrong.
Scott F · 25 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
its all just water velocity, physics, rock type. No time in the equation.
No "time" in the equation at all?? Really? Yet you use the word "velocity". Do you even know what "velocity" means? Do you know how "velocity" is measured? Here is a hint: what are the units attached to a measurement of velocity?
So, there is no time in the equation. Those two slot canyons, the granite one and the clay one in the two pictures linked to, each of those canyons could have been carved literally over night. Right? Or in a year. Or a hundred years. Or a million years. If no time is involved, then it could have happened in any time. Right?
Or are you saying that it happened in literally no time at all? Perhaps in the blink of an eye.
Again, witness the Creationist "witnessing". Events or processes that take longer than their limited attention span simply do not, literally cannot exist for them.
This is where "science" absent experimentation gets you. Armchair "philosophers" who don't know the difference between granite and clay, or between igneous and sedimentary rock, or what water is and is not capable of doing.
Clay may be the material through which the slot canyon has been carved, but it's also the name of the photographer's grandson who has been included in the photo to provide a sense of scale.
Robert Byers · 26 August 2016
eric said:
Robert Byers said:
Clay/granite foes matter relative to the power of the water. Yet the same formations will be made due to physics
Here is a granite slot canyon.
Here is a clay slot canyon.
Do they look like the same formation to you? You can't spot the differences?
A pothole can be made instantly on both . HOWEVER in the granite the water power must be stronger .
SO in slot canyons , and a correction I think to ideas proposed, it will look the same regardless of the rock type.
Nope, you thought wrong. Just click on the links and look. They don't look the same. You're just. Plain. Wrong.
If the rock is hard enough despite being made of clay(which turned to rock) , although possibly as a poster said here it was the name of some kid, THEN both would look alike.
its just velocity, rock type, physics.
There are potholes in granite or any type of rock. yet they need more power. if not enough then no pothole.
However the physics is the same for all.
Sure it is.
Scott F · 26 August 2016
Robert Byers said:
However the physics is the same for all.
Sure it is.
Sure, physics is the same for all, for everyone.
Everyone except for Creationists.
For Creationists the speed of light can vary; decay rates of radioisotopes can vary; evolution of new species can run at hyper speed then stop dead; koalas can walk to Australia; there is some magical barrier to induction; a world's worth of water can magically appear and then magically disappear in forty days with no gain or loss in energy; continents can move at a walking pace and stop on a dime; skeletons can fossilize literally overnight; volcanoes can spew out extinction-level debris, and then magically disappear without a trace; flowering plants can run to high ground from rising flood waters; prayer cures illness; magical demons literally exist; "A --> B" allows you to say anything at all about "A"; the Second Law of Thermodynamics can be violated; population bottlenecks aren't a thing; animals can reproduce exponentially without regard for resources; time doesn't exist; global warming is a hoax; molecules cannot self-assemble; snow flakes are impossible without "intelligent" intervention; etc, etc, etc.
But sure, for everyone else, physics is the same.
Henry J · 27 August 2016
Re "But sure, for everyone else, physics is the same."
Sure, but it does have that principle of uncertainty.
And sometimes there's relativity.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/w0tdZONn0dj5M1SAsJ0Cvfjm1SfgNLT6Flo-#45ac9 · 27 August 2016
Henry J said:
...but it does have that principle of uncertainty.
And sometimes there's relativity.
78 Comments
Marilyn · 1 August 2016
Amazing to get the full vertical picture. You might know that Bentonite, also known as fullers earth, mixed with a little water is very good for the skin, but don't leave it on for longer than 15 minutes.
Alan Rice · 1 August 2016
Here is a link to a Spherical Photo taken at the same location.
https://goo.gl/photos/DpSDSneK3GiBmEX79
Click on the link then click on the photo to see it in interactive spherical mode.
And thanks for voting for Geology and Bentonite Clay.
-AR
Robert Byers · 1 August 2016
Slot canyons are very attractive but more interesting to me is thier origin. I have over the years read much about thier origin, thats free, and they still say its not known.
It seems to be from powerful water concentrating but its swaying in and out still needs a mechanism.
Of coarse as a creationist its useful to see it as from quick forces and not slow ones. Thus my interest partly.
Just Bob · 1 August 2016
duncan · 2 August 2016
Damn that looks dodgy!
A deep "ditch" in clay
How long do they last?
I would NOT like to be that intrepid hiker in the picture
Alan Rice · 2 August 2016
There are many different types of slot canyons and they can be formed under different conditions. Type of bedrock, drainage area, gradient, volume & speed of the water are all factors. These canyons are formed with very low quantities of water flowing fairly slowly. Each of these bentonite canyons drainage area is in measured in square feet, not square miles. These form as small surface creeks cut through a capstone then wash out the very soft clay below.
Last week I visited a regular canyon that had been subjected to a real flash-flood a year before. The scour marks on the river bank are very evident. In places the creek bed has been carved 20 feet lower then it had been. Fast water tries to form straight channels, slow water meanders.
Alan Rice · 2 August 2016
Duncan,
They are soluble, not crumbly.
When they are dry they're fine.
The floor is insoluble sand that was embedded in the clay, left behind as the finer clay particles washed out.
Robert Byers · 2 August 2016
Alan Rice · 3 August 2016
Robert, The ones in the photo above have extremely tiny drainage areas - measured in only several hundred square feet. The canyon formation is an on-going process that can be observed in human time frames. Some slot canyons are dangerous due to flooding; the "floods" that form these are dangerous to mice.
If you are going to ignore the scientific conclusions, I would suggest you actually visit several different kinds of slot canyons, and by extension - caves, before you decide how they were formed.
Robert Byers · 3 August 2016
Alan Rice · 4 August 2016
A slot canyon will form when and while the proper conditions exist. Those conditions very depending on many factors. Slot canyons in soft clay will be destroyed by the conditions required to form a slot canyon in sandstone or limestone. For a slot canyon to form in granite requires stable conditions over tens of thousands of years. This is rare but they do exist in parts of the American Southwest and other areas as well.
Robert Byers · 4 August 2016
Alan Rice · 7 August 2016
Robert, We can measure the rate a canyon is formed at the current conditions. Since the canyon's shape ("slot" in this case) is uniform we can conclude that the conditions required to form it have been relatively stable during that time.
You assume that if it is forming now, it could have formed the same way, just hundreds or thousands of times faster in the past. That logic does not follow. Many, probably almost all, processes can not be speed up many times and still be the same process and form that same features.
I'll challenge you to create a physical model of a slot canyon using real materials and processes like scale floods. Then having created your canyon show that you can create a similar canyon at either 10 times faster or ten times slower rate.
Robert Byers · 7 August 2016
Peter Moritz · 8 August 2016
"Mechanisms in water uniquely are uniform."
If you are talking piping you maybe somewhat correct, in natural streams your argument is at least ill informed:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0252/report.pdf
"The longitudinal profile of a stream represents the simultaneous solution of eight equations involving eight unknowns."
https://engineering.dartmouth.edu/~d30345d/books/EFM/chap15.pdf
"River flow is actually three-dimensional because the velocity depends not only on downstream distance but also on depth and transverse position. This is so because friction against the bottom and banks causes the velocity to decrease from a maximum at the surface near the middle of the stream to zero along the bottom and sides. In addition, centrifugal effects in river bends generate secondary circulations that render the velocity a full three-dimensional vector."
http://directives.sc.egov.usda.gov/OpenNonWebContent.aspx?content=17782.wba
"The assumption that flow velocity is generally down
-stream in direction is also a common simplification in
the analysis of streamflow. Real streams have many
eddies where the flow circulates horizontally. Streams
also have areas of upwelling, roiling, and vertical
circulation. While designers commonly make use of
an average velocity at a given cross section, the actual
velocities in the plane of a cross section vary markedly
from top to bottom, side to side, and in direction, vary
-ing with time and three-dimensional space.
DS · 8 August 2016
Alan Rice · 8 August 2016
Robert Byers · 8 August 2016
Robert Byers · 8 August 2016
DS · 8 August 2016
right booby somebody calls you're bullshit and your saying they are not disagreeing with you now i am calling your bullshit
Alan Rice · 8 August 2016
Robert,
I really don't know what to say to you. You are an Armchair-Athlete who has never read the playbook but thinks he can read the defense via radio play-by-play.
Until you go visit Cathedral Gorge and/or the Anza-Borrego slot canyons which are also in soft clay, and quite a few other slot canyons, your speculation about how they could form is so wrong as to be meaningless.
Think about the inner canyon of the Grand Canyon which is basically a slot canyon with hundreds of thousands of times more water then the individual slot canyons that drain into it. If those other canyons had the same water flow as the Colorado River, the would be the same size.
eric · 9 August 2016
Robert Byers · 9 August 2016
Robert Byers · 9 August 2016
Peter Moritz · 10 August 2016
"This is the big deal in megaflood evidence from the melting glacial lakes in the northern areas"
So you admit to ice sheet buildup with subsequent de-glaciation and the forming of glacial lakes?
"During the colder episodesâreferred to as glacial periodsâlarge ice sheets at least 4 km thick at their maximum also existed in Europe, North America, and Siberia"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quaternary_glaciation
How long do you estimate the buildup of 4km ice sheet would take? 40 days to fit within the biblical narrative of a world wide flood?
Unfortunately, your referencing the possibility of glacial lakes which in the immensity of the drainage as indicated by the: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missoula_Floods is utterly in contrast to the biblical account where an ice-age within its time frame is impossible and unmentioned. Are you becoming a heretic now to defend another untenable position?
"It is commonly said the size of the water flow creates alike features in rock and its only a difference of size of the water flow. "
Again showing that your comprehension is severely impeded:
http://pubs.usgs.gov/pp/0252/report.pdf
âThe longitudinal profile of a stream represents the simultaneous solution of eight equations involving eight unknowns.â
Does that not tell you if channel is a solution of 8 different equations with eight unknowns then water flow volume and speed alone has little to do with the final stream features?
eric · 10 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 10 August 2016
eric · 10 August 2016
TomS · 10 August 2016
It is not so much that a person is not knowledgeable on a subject.
It is that they talk as if they know what they are talking about.
Robert Byers · 10 August 2016
Robert Byers · 10 August 2016
Peter Moritz · 11 August 2016
It is really not fruitful to discuss complex systems like natutral stream development with one who is hellbent on simplistic approaches that are not applicable to the natural environment. like ignoring topography, stream gradient, erodibility, rock composition, hardness, etc.
"Mechanism in water flow does create like formations regardless of rock type"
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/streams.htm
"Streams erode because they have the ability to pick up rock fragments and transport them to a new location. The size of the fragments that can be transported depends on the velocity of the stream and whether the flow is laminar or turbulent. Turbulent flow can keep fragments in suspension longer than laminar flow.
Streams can also erode by undercutting their banks resulting in mass-wasting processes like slumps or slides. When the undercut material falls into the stream, the fragments can be transported away by the stream.
Streams can cut deeper into their channels if the region is uplifted or if there is a local change in base level. As they cut deeper into their channels the stream removes the material that once made up the channel bottom and sides.
Although slow, as rocks move along the stream bottom and collide with one another, abrasion of the rocks occurs, making smaller fragments that can then be transported by the stream.
Finally, because some rocks and minerals are easily dissolved in water, dissolution also occurs, resulting in dissolved ions being transported by the stream."
" A Canyon has steep sidewalls that form cliffs. Whether or valley or canyon is formed depends on the rate of erosion and strength of the rocks. In general, slow downcutting and weak, easily erodable rocks results in valleys and rapid downcutting in stronger rocks results in canyons.
Because geologic processes stack strong and weak rocks, such stratigraphic variation often yields a stair step profile of the canyon walls, as seen in the Grand Canyon. Strong rocks yield vertical cliffs, whereas weak rocks produce more gently sloped canyon walls."
Just to show that simple fluid mecanics are not enough to model flow patterns in actual streams:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223761225_Application_of_two-_and_three-dimensional_computational_fluid_dynamics_models_to_complex_ecological_stream_flows
"Numerical simulations using 2-D and 3-D CFD models were
conducted to assess their ability to reproduce micro- and
meso-scale complex ï¬ow patterns triggered by the presence
of a hemisphere or boulders at various discharges. Com-
pared to measured data, results show that the 3-D model,
coupled with RSM turbulence closure, can provide a more
satisfactory prediction of the reverse velocities and pre-
dominant circulation patterns near the ï¬ow obstructions"
Peter Moritz · 11 August 2016
It is really not fruitful to discuss complex systems like natural stream development with one who is hellbent on simplistic approaches that are not applicable to the natural environment. like ignoring topography, stream gradient, erodibility, rock composition, hardness, etc.
"Mechanism in water flow does create like formations regardless of rock type"
http://www.tulane.edu/~sanelson/eens1110/streams.htm
"Streams erode because they have the ability to pick up rock fragments and transport them to a new location. The size of the fragments that can be transported depends on the velocity of the stream and whether the flow is laminar or turbulent. Turbulent flow can keep fragments in suspension longer than laminar flow.
Streams can also erode by undercutting their banks resulting in mass-wasting processes like slumps or slides. When the undercut material falls into the stream, the fragments can be transported away by the stream.
Streams can cut deeper into their channels if the region is uplifted or if there is a local change in base level. As they cut deeper into their channels the stream removes the material that once made up the channel bottom and sides.
Although slow, as rocks move along the stream bottom and collide with one another, abrasion of the rocks occurs, making smaller fragments that can then be transported by the stream.
Finally, because some rocks and minerals are easily dissolved in water, dissolution also occurs, resulting in dissolved ions being transported by the stream."
" A Canyon has steep sidewalls that form cliffs. Whether or valley or canyon is formed depends on the rate of erosion and strength of the rocks. In general, slow downcutting and weak, easily erodable rocks results in valleys and rapid downcutting in stronger rocks results in canyons.
Because geologic processes stack strong and weak rocks, such stratigraphic variation often yields a stair step profile of the canyon walls, as seen in the Grand Canyon. Strong rocks yield vertical cliffs, whereas weak rocks produce more gently sloped canyon walls."
Just to show that simple fluid mecanics are not enough to model flow patterns in actual streams:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223761225_Application_of_two-_and_three-dimensional_computational_fluid_dynamics_models_to_complex_ecological_stream_flows
"Numerical simulations using 2-D and 3-D CFD models were
conducted to assess their ability to reproduce micro- and
meso-scale complex ï¬ow patterns triggered by the presence
of a hemisphere or boulders at various discharges. Com-
pared to measured data, results show that the 3-D model,
coupled with RSM turbulence closure, can provide a more
satisfactory prediction of the reverse velocities and pre-
dominant circulation patterns near the ï¬ow obstructions"
Peter Moritz · 11 August 2016
sorry for the double posting. That shit happens when edit function does not exist.
eric · 11 August 2016
Matt Young · 11 August 2016
eric · 11 August 2016
gnome de net · 11 August 2016
gnome de net · 11 August 2016
gnome de net · 11 August 2016
My post usually posts!
TomS · 11 August 2016
Scott F · 11 August 2016
Robert Byers · 11 August 2016
Robert Byers · 11 August 2016
Mike Elzinga · 13 August 2016
What kind of camera and lens system was used to take this picture?
It appears that the picture was taken with a lens system that scanned through a 90 degree angle to capture the person standing, and then scanning upward all the way to looking directly up into the sky.
Is this a panoramic scanning camera?
Robert Byers · 16 August 2016
For anyone interested. A good paper/summery/ideas about slot canyons, that is free, is "Fluvial erosion of physically modelled abrasion-dominated slot canyons" by Carissa Carter/Robert Anderson.2006
A good summery of ideas on them and and experiments to try to figure them out.
Alan Rice · 20 August 2016
Alan Rice · 20 August 2016
Robert,
A little assignment for you, if you are up to it, about a specific slot canyon. Look up a place called "Hercules Gap, Nevada" (6.5 miles north of Ely).
Be sure to look at a few photos and on a topo map. Then describe in a few sentences how you think it formed and over what time period (when and how long).
Mike Elzinga · 20 August 2016
Robert Byers · 20 August 2016
Alan Rice · 20 August 2016
Alan Rice · 20 August 2016
Robert Byers · 21 August 2016
DS · 21 August 2016
spectacular specified speculation
Alan Rice · 22 August 2016
Robert,
Do you understand that a slot canyon is formed by erosion primarily to the floor (or face in rare cases like above) of the canyon, and little to none on the sides? Your statements of "Any amount" of water doesn't work since soon the erosion will be not limited to the floor. Erosion of the sides will widen it out so that it is no longer a slot.
By the way, there are underground slot canyons in caves. Many of these are physically restricted by the amount of water than can enter.
Also, you should learn how to read a topo map. They are useful for a lot more than geology.
Matt Young · 22 August 2016
DS · 22 August 2016
Doesn't matter/ As long a booby can imagine that it could be formed in a few years, that's good enough for him.
Unless of course no one is actually trying to convince him of anything anyways.
Robert Byers · 22 August 2016
Robert Byers · 22 August 2016
Alan Rice · 23 August 2016
It is amazing how easy it is for you to misunderstand or ignore any facts which are inconvenient for you.
Limestone has strengths of 4000-30,000+ PSI. By you estimation, this must not have always been the case (if canyons can form fast). When did it get hard? It must have been sometime not long after the flood. Is it still getting harder? What changed?
If you are so interested, you should do some physical modeling. I can suggest many different ways: like sugar-cubes and hot water or dirt and a pressure-washer (my personal favorite).
eric · 23 August 2016
DS · 23 August 2016
Told you so.
Robert Byers · 23 August 2016
Alan Rice · 24 August 2016
The basic process is well understood by everyone but you.
Mega floods have never produced a slot canyon. Disagree? Show me one. Don't speculate or point to a paper you don't understand, give me a lat and lon.
Earlier this evening I was looking back through some photos I took a month ago while hiking through a canyon that had suffered a flash flood last year. The damage happened fast and the scars are the opposite of a slot canyon.
Robert Byers · 24 August 2016
DS · 24 August 2016
i speculate that it took millions and millions of years so there YEC us YUC
Scott F · 24 August 2016
Scott F · 24 August 2016
Alan Rice · 25 August 2016
I think it's called "Intelligent Physics". All Robert knows is could not have happened over a long period of time. Anything and everything else is up for grabs.
I would like to continue to watch Robert twist and duck, but I'm headed back into the field for a week or so. Mid August through Mid October I'm out for a week and in for a week. I'll read PT when I can but won't be able to post.
richard09 · 25 August 2016
I'm not any sort off biologist, so sometimes the discussions of genetics and related stuff goes by me at quite a lick. I have to say, I'm also not any sort of geologist, but this discussion has been a real eye-opener. I've seen numerous instances where Mr Byers has been told that he doesn't know what he's talking about, but this time, wow. It's crystal clear not only that he's talking complete bullshit, but also isn't even capable of understanding how stupid it sounds. Even a complete layman like me can understand the idea of a slow trickle very gradually cutting down into soft dirt, while any sort of fast flow will have a completely different result. That he can't - won't - see it, is mind-boggling.
Robert Byers · 25 August 2016
eric · 25 August 2016
Scott F · 25 August 2016
gnome de net · 26 August 2016
Robert Byers · 26 August 2016
Scott F · 26 August 2016
Henry J · 27 August 2016
Re "But sure, for everyone else, physics is the same."
Sure, but it does have that principle of uncertainty.
And sometimes there's relativity.
https://me.yahoo.com/a/w0tdZONn0dj5M1SAsJ0Cvfjm1SfgNLT6Flo-#45ac9 · 27 August 2016