no much to say, really
Posted by John Vidale on January 20, 2005 at 10:02:39:

In the theory, as in many theories of instabilities, the size of the disturbance that goes unstable is probably far smaller than the resulting ground breakage in the earthquake. So the volume over which precursory deformation might occur could be as small as a cubic meter, effectively completely unobservable, and such disturbances could be happening all the time with most NOT leading to an earthquake.

Bottom line is that it is perfectly in accord with the proven observations for there to be no way to spot the precursory deformation indicated by the rate-and-state theory.


Follow Ups:
     ● Could be it might have been better not to say anything in the first place, then - Ara  18:57:05 - 1/20/2005  (24495)  (1)
        ● in search of quibbling contradiction - John Vidale  21:58:36 - 1/20/2005  (24498)  (3)
           ● Re: in search of quibbling contradiction - Cathryn  06:47:58 - 1/23/2005  (24528)  (1)
              ● have a favorite reference? - John Vidale  08:12:11 - 1/23/2005  (24535)  (1)
                 ● Actually, yes - Cathryn  09:07:15 - 1/23/2005  (24545)  (1)
                    ● there were foreshocks - John Vidale  10:28:01 - 1/23/2005  (24556)  (1)
                       ● confused Haicheng with Tangshan - Cathryn  10:41:34 - 1/23/2005  (24557)  (0)
           ● Not quibbling at all - Ara  01:10:59 - 1/21/2005  (24501)  (1)
              ● our statement - John Vidale  07:05:12 - 1/21/2005  (24503)  (2)
                 ● The ebb and flow of untestable ideas  - Ara  06:05:50 - 1/22/2005  (24510)  (2)
                    ● angels dancing on the head of a pin - John Vidale  08:02:30 - 1/22/2005  (24512)  (1)
                       ● Pin heads dancing with angels - Ara  09:39:08 - 1/22/2005  (24513)  (2)
                          ● you're drifted into offensive remarks - John Vidale  16:45:19 - 1/22/2005  (24518)  (1)
                             ● You have drifted into excuses - Ara  18:17:21 - 1/22/2005  (24519)  (0)
                          ● Re: Pin heads dancing with angels - Canie  11:10:35 - 1/22/2005  (24516)  (1)
                             ● On the criticism - Ara  18:33:04 - 1/22/2005  (24520)  (1)
                                ● really? - John Vidale  18:54:27 - 1/22/2005  (24521)  (1)
                                   ● Oh come on.  - Ara  20:45:25 - 1/22/2005  (24522)  (1)
                                      ● I get it - John Vidale  21:00:09 - 1/22/2005  (24523)  (1)
                                         ● I did not get it - Ara  01:56:43 - 1/23/2005  (24526)  (0)
                    ● grammar correction - Ara  06:18:02 - 1/22/2005  (24511)  (1)
                       ● Insults - Cathryn  08:09:02 - 1/23/2005  (24533)  (2)
                          ● Aggravation - Ara  23:50:27 - 1/23/2005  (24558)  (1)
                             ● clear illustration of Ara's clarity of thought - John Vidale  01:50:28 - 1/24/2005  (24559)  (1)
                                ● Ara's clear clarity - Ara  02:27:28 - 1/24/2005  (24560)  (1)
                                   ● Re: Ara's clear clarity - Cathryn  08:07:11 - 1/24/2005  (24561)  (1)
                                      ● Re:respect - Ara  16:50:40 - 1/24/2005  (24567)  (1)
                                         ● Re:respect - Cathryn  19:42:29 - 1/24/2005  (24573)  (1)
                                            ● very clear - John Vidale  21:26:32 - 1/24/2005  (24577)  (1)
                                               ● Re: very clear - Cathryn  04:45:57 - 1/25/2005  (24585)  (0)
                          ● thanks - John Vidale  08:32:51 - 1/23/2005  (24541)  (1)
                             ● Re: thanks - Cathryn  08:44:13 - 1/23/2005  (24542)  (0)
                 ● For John And Ara. Speculation And Theory - Don in Hollister  13:03:06 - 1/21/2005  (24505)  (2)
                    ● Re: For John And Ara. Speculation And Theory - Cathryn  08:18:45 - 1/23/2005  (24537)  (0)
                    ● You left out hypothesis n/t - Roger Hunter  13:11:50 - 1/21/2005  (24506)  (1)
                       ● Re: You left out hypothesis n/t - Canie  17:53:15 - 1/21/2005  (24508)  (2)
                          ● Re: You left out hypothesis n/t - Cathryn  08:22:53 - 1/23/2005  (24538)  (0)
                          ● Re: You left out hypothesis n/t - Roger Hunter  20:20:31 - 1/21/2005  (24509)  (1)
                             ● Re: You left out hypothesis n/t - Cathryn  08:25:48 - 1/23/2005  (24539)  (0)
           ● The Crest of the Wave - Petra  22:41:25 - 1/20/2005  (24500)  (0)