John,

You wrote, gYour long diatribe is curiously devoid of the level of detail that is the bread and butter of science. We must combine indirect evidence to advance on many problems, not just friction.h

Your many posts are devoid of any detail that might suggest you are effectively combining indirect evidence to solve any problem at all.

gYou seem blissfully unaware that rate-and-state friction is the subject of not just observations of the response of earthquake rate to loading, but also theoretical studies (Rice, Dieterich, Ruina, etc.), studies on blocks of rock in labs (Lockner, Rosakis, Tullis, Marone, etc.)h

Well, I would be very surprised indeed if scientists were not studying gblocks of rock in labsh. Down the hall, there are some other blocks of rock, and there they are studying piezo-electric phenomena. You, on the other thread, were blissfully unaware of any research going on in that realm. So what is your point?

gand we're even in the process of drilling toward sites of known earthquakes on the San Andreas fault and elsewhere in California, Taiwan, and Japan.h

So what? What does your hypothesis say you will find?

gIt will be a long time before people are present to directly observe the minor constituents of the Earth's core, the black hole at the center of our galaxy, or the Big Bang that marked the beginning of the universe as we know it, but people work on those problems and are making progress anyway.h

Progress on the Big Bang? That is not something I would want to stake the significance of my research on.

gI had thought your dispute was based in a small misunderstanding of earthquake science, but see it has much deeper roots,h

Itfs not deep at all. Quite simple. You want people to believe that what you are doing is significant, but you seem unable to state clearly and succinctly what that significance is, without fundamental conceptual distortions. I would like to know what significance your work has, but I do not wish to be subjected to gross distortions in the process.

According to you, just because rate-and-state friction gis the subject ofctheoretical studiesc on blocks of rock in labsh, it should be considered a gtheory.h

That is not science. That is PR, or maybe even BS.

Studies? They are just a matter of making observations in the laboratory and then extrapolating in speculation concerning underground unobservable situations.

That is exactly what the piezo-electric researchers want to do. Why is it that you have a gtheoryh and they just have groundless speculation?

Ara