Again, your naivete astonishes me.

Point B may come, or it may never come. Your plans may accelerate our progress toward point B, or more likely make no difference. To assume that you are leading us to point B is incredibly naive. No serious scientist would make that claim today. Scientists are conducting direct research into earthquake, studying their mechanics, the ground deformation, and even drilling into the fault zone to see how faults work, they are not aimlessly researching in useless directions as you suggest.

As a more basic error, you conclude that earthquakes are storing large amounts of energy in the ground, therefore we can see quakes coming. Unfortunately, for more than 100 years, we have known more accurately than you do how much energy plate tectonics stores in the ground, and it is painfully obvious that this does not mean we can inevitably predict earthquakes.

If you think you can predict earthquakes, send a paper to Nature, with the proper documentation of your methods and convincing statistics. If it is true, they'll publish it, but I am not optimistic. You don't seem to know the basics about earthquakes and plate tectonics.

John