Atleast someone here has attempted to use some science to explain things.
No, you don't have the high moral ground here. In your last thread you were given vast amounts of correct science that disputed your theories, as well as detailed explanations from your own documentation about how you were wrong. Instead of admitting you were wrong -- or at least that you didn't know what you were talking about -- you continued to foist your own ignorant opinion. When you were finally cornered, you ran away. No, you were not "busy with work." You came back to the forum several times after your last post, ostensibly to read the progress of the thread. I say you were instead confronted with facts that you couldn't address, so you ran away. You can prove that conclusion wrong at any time by taking up the subjects you left behind when you were allegedly too busy to deal with them. Clearly you're not longer busy.
Here's the thing: your critics will feel it less a waste of their time if you demonstrate that you are amenable to fact. If you're just going to keep jerking people around like you did before, you don't get to assign moral values to the responses you get.
Having said that, angle of repose issues really are not applicable to this topic.
And you say this from your vast experience in particulate mechanics? You have already proven yourself willing simply to make up whatever "facts" you need in order for your beliefs to hold, regardless of whatever real science brings to the table. What makes this dismissal any more credible than your other denials?
Clearly that should be obvious to everyone.
No, you're just once again demanding that your ignorance be equivalent to fact. Begging the question will not convince your critics here.
Are we to believe none of this regolith piles up on the top of rocks yet the bases of these rocks are buried in regolith?
Yes.