* Pln2bz's second question again to another member "X" was:
* I explained previously that the question is likely based on a misunderstanding of Shock Dynamics theory. But here's how "X" answered that question (though I've shortened and slightly paraphrased the answer for the sake of simplification and clarity):2. Could a shock wave produce a fluidized crust that would allow crustal rocks to flow freely, and then to almost immediately thereafter freeze them (otherwise unchanged from their original compositions) into a new shape?
* The big picture here is that "Sturzstrom-avalanches" and "unusual dry rock slides on Mars" are real events that are not explained by conventional science, because the material in the avalanches on our seafloors and in the rock slides on Mars slide much "greater distances than they ought to", which is why Melosh or some other scientist was studying them.* X's Answer: no. his own source material gives the opposition to this idea:
1. The paper referenced refers [only] to a Sturzstrom-avalanche area. it requires an acoustic wave that can only happen over short distances.
2. it would require the rock medium to have been a debris pile from the beginning.
3. Further, this paper specifies that its purpose is to find an explanation for the unusual dry rock slides on Mars, where there is no air or water layer available to enable the debris to glide such an unusually far distance across the surface.
* an acoustic wave is theorized in the afore-mentioned paper [only] because neither the force of gravity nor earthquake waves are sufficient alone to perform the motion noted during these sturzstroms - these are special avalanches that travel greater distances than they ought to.
* Whether or not "acoustic waves" (which I think are sound waves) are responsible for the sliding, the fact seems to be that the sliding is real and it is rocks sliding long distances on rock. It's entirely reasonable to theorize that much larger rock, like continents, can also slide on a fairly smooth rock surface, like the lithosphere, especially under heat, pressure and electrified conditions.
* Judging from a previous email I received from X, I think her own theory is that continental drift is gradual, and she seems very biased against the possibility of rapid continental sliding. I'm contemplating organizing a list of Earth features in order to compare the relevance of the various theories, like Ralph Juergens did re features of lunar rilles in his article "Of the Moon and Mars" at http://kronia.com.
* I'm the one who said it SEEMS that canyons GENERALLY can't form underwater. Only I called them gulleys, because they're on the steep slopes of the continental shelf cliffs and I wanted to distinguish between them and canyons on horizontal surfaces.X: And there are other statements he makes that are simply incorrect. he says that underwater canyons cannot form underwater. This is not true--turbidity currents are busy making and deepening underwater canyons as we speak.
* I doubt that turbidity currents deepen underwater canyons or gulleys significantly. I think the canyons cause the turbidity, rather than turbidity causing the canyons. Conventional scientists also think that rainwater carved out our major rivers above sealevel. But EU experts find a great preponderence of evidence that electrical discharges carved them out and that rainwater has deepened most of them only slightly. So, if turbidity has any effect on underwater gulleys or canyons, electrical discharges still likely carved them out in the first place.
* Look at the similarity between the submarine gulleys on the continental shelf cliffs and the gulleys in Valles Marineris:
http://esamultimedia.esa.int/images/mar ... sma_H1.jpg
Fraser island in Australia:
http://clasticdetritus.files.wordpress. ... tibeam.jpg
* Since TPODs are finding more and more Earth features to be likely caused by electrical forces, I think it's extremely likely that the same is true of the very similar looking features on the seafloors.
* But the bottom surfaces can melt, while the remaining crust retains its chemistry, and the melted bottoms can freeze again after sliding.X: Shocked rocks can do several things. They cannot, however, flow like water, rapidly be frozen in place, and still retain their physical and chemical properties intact.
* Like the tektites that fell in the area from the Somali Basin to Australia.X: evidence of a meteor impact would include the presence of certain indicator rocks and minerals that are produced from the shockwave itself.
* You misunderstand the theory. The mountains were built up from horizontal compression during the initial breaking loose from the lithosphere and during the slowdown when friction was building up.X: Do we find those indicator rocks and minerals in all those mountains referred to on the website?
* Again, it was only a thin layer that melted at the bottoms of continents and probably between blocks in mountain building. Can't you conceive of a thin layer melting, like on the surfaces between a slab of ice sliding on an ice-covered pond? It's not like the whole slab melts, slides and then returns to the original slab shape and freezes again. In the case of the ice slab, just the bottom surface melts due to friction from sliding and then the melted bottom layer refreezes when sliding ends!!X: Melted rock will re-crystallize into predictable forms. If melted rock re-crystallized within 26 hours or so, as the author postulates, they would all have become aphanitic rocks, with no or few crystals visible to the naked eye (rhyolites, obsidians, basalts, and so on).
* I don't understand how you get the theory so mixed up.