Amit, no, less predictions means that there will be less significance to the statistical analysis. You can do 2 predictions and get them correct but it will not be statistically significant: it could be luck. Or you could do 2 predictions and get them both wrong, but it does not mean there is nothing to your method.

If you do 100 predictions and get just a few more than chance, then that could be interesting if you were using something plausible like sun and moon (earth tides). Earth tides have been shown to have a weak effect on a spreading center (magma chamber). If you are doing something ridiculous like apparent planetary motions, which now I'm starting to remember, then a couple more correct predictions than chance is not interesting.

If you are using apparent planetary motions and that is the main thing, then that is just ridiculous, and you ignored commnents from people who know what they are talking about in the past. I'd take you more seriously if you were a psychic. If that is the main thing, I don't know why Roger bothers and why I read all of the recent posts. The Southern California Earthquake Center study of earthquake predictability is only interested in physics-based methods. Seismologists would really like to be able to do short term predicition, but there has been no success so far.

Chris