Don,

First, Lowell, so much for being anonymous! It's just as well, now I have to be careful what I say so will check what I write. Don, the ideas about shear stress and normal stress are mainstream earthquake geology. If there are any facts in science, then these are facts. Concerning my knowledge of the Rodgers Creek fault: I have done most of my California work south of latitude 35 deg. I have heard of the Rodgers Creek fault, but have never worked on it. First, I have only been aware of this web site for about a week, so do not know what you mean by weak links, and also do not know what forms the basis of your predictions that Lowell seems to be enthusiastic about. However, I can address creeping faults. All parts of the San Andreas fault are creeping below a locking depth. This is a depth of 15 to 20 km (depending on where you are)below which temperatures are high enough that quartz loses its strength (I don't have time to get these posts exactly right, but I am close). So, the deep San Andreas fault is creeping continuously. That is what is measured with geodetics (GPS). The shallow part is locked. When the shear stress exceeds the strength (related to cohesion of fault gouge and the normal stress and friction coefficient), you have an earthquake. Creeping surface faults are extremely rare, with the Hayward fault and the San Andreas and associated faults north of (?) San Juan Baustista being examples. If the surface fault is creeping at the same rate as the deep fault, you need not ever have a major earthquake (but will have lots of little ones). I don't have any idea what you mean by "when there are no more weak links", but I am pretty sure that mainstream earthquake geologists would consider the Rodgers Creek fault capable of a large earthquake one day. By the way, I was a complete failure as a teacher-let me know when my explanations are not clear. Chris