This video is really worth the watch. It deals in cold hard facts. Brilliant!

I saw one possible discrepancy in the otherwise enlightening sedimentary presentations. The Mediterranean and also the now dry lake deposits were said to order themselves with the largest particulates forming the top layers with smaller sands and finally clay comprising the lower layers. However, in the later experiments the tendency of larger particles to have less resistance due to momentum once having overcome initial inertia showed the larger ball / rocks going down the slopes in continuous layering along with the smaller ones. Although not articulated, it was easy to observe that the larger particles of black sand did, however as first stated, tend to remain on or rise to the top (Perhaps also seen as rocks rise to the surface and crop up naturally in gardens? Or is this another phenomenon entirely?), while the light colored finer sand sifted to the bottom on the dry glass plate. The layers seemed to form differently in water with black / white / back in the drained larger tank when the cross cut section was taken.

Bottom Line: In part, as one explanation of how much of the earth’s layering formed, I can accept your progressive angular sedimentation theory, but not all of its particular demonstrations; especially the slanted board with its abrupt obstacle line that stopped the smaller white ball and allowed the larger black object to roll past that point not only by mass and inertia, but also due to a higher center of gravity which has more to do with its ability to overcome the nature of the particular barrier than the slant of the board or the size or weight of the two balls. (Poor illustration.)

Flooding, even universal flooding, was mentioned in the film as another source of layering over a geologically short period of time. If such a catastrophe based explanation is assumed, then how would the fossil record sort itself out in such a scenario? Would larger life forms, like the bigger rocks, rise to the top (bloat and float would not likely have left remains to bury so they would have had to be buried alive or die and be covered quickly to pin them down without oxygen (your stated condition in order to form fossils))? Or would intelligence and greater mobility have saved them until last as they escaped to the rapidly vanishing higher ground? What of the REALLY big dinosaurs? Why are they in the early middle layers according to the sedimentary theory? Is their death attributable to another cause other than drowning? The majority, but not all of the little creatures at the very bottom makes sense using sedimentation arguments, but why the clear differentiation of higher orders in higher layers? Of course this assumes either a universal flood or long ages of time over which to bury just the dinosaurs before moving on in the time line.

If as in you illustration the first fish at the top of one sediment layer is older than the crab at the bottom of the next angular deposit, why are crabs always at the bottom and fish always at the top layer? Are there are still many scientific questions lacking answers using your theory too? Or did you just not have time to cover all the bases in a little over an hour?

I respectfully await your reply.

PS. … So I am rooting for some solid answers to what I see as a few holes in your theory.