John, I am going to try another approach here and see if it works. I have been thinking of trying to explain things this way for a while but did not have time to post a note about it.

Let us say that you monitor height of the ocean tide in the Los Angeles area and then try to match tide height with the occurrence of local earthquakes. I doubt that you would find that they match very well.

Now let us say that you take the ocean tide values and adjust them so they do actually match the earthquake occurrence times. Then you create a computer program which produces that type of modified ocean tide data. It would be a rather strange looking wave. But, wonder of wonders, it would both enable you to match precursor signals with earthquakes, and earthquakes occurrence times with those of other earthquakes.

You really don’t have to know why it works though that would be nice. The important thing is to be able to predict future earthquakes so that you can get people out of the way. Developing an understanding why such a procedure works could be done any time. You cannot replace lost lives.

That use of “synthetic” data approach to forecasting earthquakes is what I am doing although the details are different. I do not rely heavily on synthetic ocean tide data although they are used as support data for my program.

And I am working with other research personnel in an effort to get large numbers of people involved with the process of developing this technology, parts of which are bewilderingly complex. People are having an easy time understanding some of the technology. But as I said other parts are drawing some blanks in part because they rely on a merging of celestial mechanics, geophysics, and electric field technology. It is difficult to find anyone who has a good understanding of all three areas. So far only one other scientist has been able to grasp everything right away. And he appears to be preoccupied with other matters at the moment.

So, is that type of explanation a little easier to digest?