I'm not on a real fast comp right now, or I would leave you a link to the refereed paper. This was a series of experiments done over a significant amount of time. The video is not an exhaustive account of all the experiments. The scientists write of several other experiments using other sediments, with measured results. There were also dessication experiments done which formed the bedding planes.
The proposition in the paper is not as strong as the video. It basically says that strata are not necessarily the result of successive layers, as almost all education and media teach.
Geologic literature about prograding sediments makes the same claim. Both the video which seems so popular here, and the popular media do not cover geology all that well. But this experiment did show successive layers. Don't get stuck on the definition of "layer" the video wishes people to have. Any one of the contemporaneous topset, foreset, and bottomset units can also be defined as a layer. This is not a precise geologic term as I posted in a different thread.
It does not quatify how many strata, nor does anywhere it say all strata should be interpreted by these experiments. But certainly I would think they confirm the feasibility of past paleocurrent interpretations, which you have alluded to. These past geological papers are also recognized in the paper.
The video attempts to imply that all sedimentary rocks should be considered to have formed "sideways"....
It shows a test of one depositional environment and then states that all sedimentary rocks formed the same way. Different environments have different sediments in different supply rates and different velocities in the water. You can perform similar experiments and produce alternating beds that are nearly horizontal, one on top of each other, just as we find being deposited in bays and the open oceans.
I didn't hear them say that ALL sedimentary rocks formed the same way. I just drove through the Missourri limestone on I 55. Even a drive by shows different kinds of depositons. I saw thin horitonal strata in short deposits, and homogenous (mash potato "glops"--one at least 20 feet high by 75 feet long--approximation) deposits juxtaposed to it, which had obvious signs of plasticity at depositon. In the same area I saw uncracked folded strata, (bent and syncline/anticline formation). I saw both thick strata (perhaps 3 or 4 feet) and extremely thin (less than 8") in the same formations or formations near each other at the same elevation.
Even in the flood, there would have been oppurtunity for landslides, and other one time or mass deposits, even in stiller water. It depends on the time, geography and events that were happening.
It appeared to me that the producers of the video wished people to assume that this was the way all sedimentary rocks form. Even transgressive deposits in ocean basins shown in an animation with "tidal waves" are deposited "sideways"....
So from personal observation you appear to see rocks that prove the conclusions of the video to be wrong. I suggest discarding it from use as it presents a gibberish account of geology.
It is implied that a French sedimentologist has made startling discoveries that have actually been part of standard accepted geology for a long, long time such as the difference between lithostratigrahic units and time stratigraphic units. Geologists have long realized there are time transgressive units. This is called "bands" in the video, but that is not a correct scientific term for this. It also was known that micro-lamination could be produced in rapidly flowing water before the study shown was conducted.
Again I have to say that professors in geology and the media have not well communicated this. The predominate view, as evidenced by most textbooks and wikipedia is that most sedimetary rock formed in still water or by aeolian processes over long periods of time.
How many professors of geology and geology books have you encountered. I have encountered dozens of both an these concepts and very well represented in standard lectures and texts. I posted whey you don't see discussions of this is you local paper, not many people find it interesting.
You continue to minimize the fact this was not just a look and interpretation, but expermental data which is significant. It is a significant part of the scientific method, and can be justifiably used by stratigaraphy, where strata show matching evidence.
The experimental data shown in the video was not new, or any sort of break-through. Yes, it can be used in stratigraphic studies and be used as an analogy for rocks that are similar and match in evidence. I have never posted otherwise. What I have consistently posted against is the conclusions that are wrongly drawn from the experimental data, most notably that it falsifies the Law of Superposition. This clearly was not shown by the results.