I agree that the lack of a phd or formal papers being published does not mean that amateurs cannot make contributions within science and in particular, with regard to the study of earthquakes. This is a nascent field in which I think scientists readily admit their ignorance. It also, as EQF alludes too, encompasses may different disciplines.

EQF, I do find your blanket statements implying that you and you alone are capable of understanding your work to be at best condescending. I actually work with Data Modelers, so I am familiar with the activities. These are guys who optimize routes for the phone companies and correlate patterns such as beer and diapers sell best together on Thursday evenings. Yet, I am not able to glean anything meaningful from the data on your website. Admittedly, i have not studied in depth. However I get the impression that I am not alone in not understanding your work. There are a lot of bright and capable people here, so please don't dismiss our confusion so haughtily.

To collaborate and discuss trends, theories and findings will lead us closer to prediction. However blanket claims of prediction capabilities are always going to be regarded as suspect, until a track record of definitive predictions is performed.
I myself encourage you to continue your work, and not be discouraged if something doesn't work or if a field of investigation doesn't pan out. That's just good science. As Robert Heinlein once said, "Always listen to the experts. They'll tell you what can't be done and why. Then do it."
So please, until you do publish/post your methods do not take our confusion for stupidity, but more of a lack of clarity and granularity on your part.

my $.02
(FWIW, the last time I was perturbed and posted on a website like this, we had several 4.+ in San Ramon)