Darren

Speaking of cornstarch under acceleration,

Take a look at this demonstration of a non-newtonian fluid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f2XQ97XHjVw

It's been a long day, but I'll have a go at it.

To explain that one, you'd have to start with an example of glass. Glass is a liquid that acts like a solid.
Then again, there are some that claim there is no such thing as a solid. Things are perceived as a solid because no one is around long enough to measure their flow.
According to that theory, a solid is actually a liquid with a very high viscosity.
Mercury tends to spin some folks out when they try to explain it. It doesn't play well in the Newtonian sandbox.
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/Glass/glass.html

Either way, they are all made of various configurations of atomic structure, or an atom.

Those atoms make up particles/molecules, those particles are either slowed or speed up to cool or heat up.

You'll normally see UT procedures with a limit of temperature variation between the UT system and the part being examined as the velocity, and the physical characteristics are not exactly a match outside a specific temperature range. (usually considered to be 25F)

Your cornstarch example is due to the molecules lining up under stress.

For a sinusoidal wave front, the particles are not actually moving out of position, that are moving back and forth according to which waveform (transverse, longitudinal etc) hits them. Unless the wave front hits it at such an amplitude (enough energy) to force it out of it's natural place of rest (tear it open) it's going to return to that place after the wavefront comes through. (example; rarefraction and compression)

All the atoms in a material are constantly moving about in a vibration unless your at absolute zero. The amount of that movement depends on the heat being applied to it, or exiting from it (endothermic or exothermic) several other factors, but they all are moving when above zero to lesser or greater degrees.

So to answer your question, simply freeze the liquid, induce a vibration that creates a destructive interference pattern in the material that stops the normal vibration of the materials atomic structure. Instant solid.
Easy right? So easy I nor anyone else has a clue how to do it, but the theory is correct.

It is my opinion that to get past most of the scientific hurdles of this century and the last, science needs a new Newton and Einstein. Someone not tied to either one of them that will question the obvious assumed answers with an open mind. There is a lot out there that modern science should be able to explain if their theories were correct, but they cannot do so. Quantum entanglement, einsteins "spooky physics", or his wave particle duality, or recent experiments that bring into question his "great mind" http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2008/813/3  "the phenomenon influencing the particles had to be traveling at least 10,000 times faster than light" so much for the FTL limit and everthing that went with it. Remember the wave particle duality? particles that have no mass was how light was explained to not violate the FTL limit.
He figured that as a given mass approaches the speed of light, it's mass increased proportionally until it's mass become infinite at the speed of light. If it's infinite, then everything in the universe should have died when that experiment took place in Switzerland. I personally think the theory was on very shaky ground a long time ago when it ran across the first slit experiment, and later with Englert-Greenberger duality relation in 95. Even by Englerts work, the particle exist. So either there are particles running around the defy the laws of physics in one way, or in another.
I don't think a lot of folks understand just how big a wrench that throws into modern science.

You caught me at a bad time Darren. My mind tends to go semi ballistic when I've been up more than 48 hours. Let me know if that makes any sense to you.

Regards,
Gerald