|
no much to say, really |
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) |
|