Interpretation And Baseline Findings

Baseline Behavior

The variance ratios (R² proxies) across windows are generally low, on the order of 0.005–0.06 (0.5–6%). This indicates that Kp explains a small but measurable fraction of the variance in normalized tides. These low ratios are consistent with what we expect from a subtle field-coherence signal rather than a dominant gravitational driver.

Phase Stability (Lag Distribution)

The best lags cluster at the edges of the ±48h window:
• Several windows show extreme lags of +45 to +47 hours or –45 to –47 hours.

• These are not random scatter, but indicate that the strongest correlations lock onto nearly two-day offsets.

Interpretation: This suggests the field interaction shows a delayed coherence envelope relative to Kp, not an immediate mechanical effect, but a structured offset. The asymmetrical clustering (negative vs. positive) may indicate directional dependence, reflecting ocean basin geometry rather than a universal gravitational tide.

Correlation Values

Correlations range from about –0.56 to +0.62.
• Positive correlations indicate direct alignment (tides rise with higher Kp).

• Negative correlations indicate inverse alignment (tides fall with higher Kp).

Within an Ӕ–EMF framework, this polarity reversal suggests constructive vs. destructive interference patterns depending on basin resonance. A purely gravitational model would not predict such reversals.

Unique San Francisco Features

San Francisco’s Pacific basin setting (open west coast, direct exposure to Pacific EMF structures) may explain why lag clustering is strong near ±48h, a possible resonance feedback time for the basin. Although variance ratios are low, the consistent edge-lag peaks highlight a non-random structure.

Implications Before Comparison

The San Francisco baseline establishes a clear signature:
• Edge-lag clustering (~±48h)

• Mixed polarity correlations

• Low but persistent variance ratios

When compared to Newlyn, the key questions will be:
• Does lag clustering occur in the same way?

• Are polarity reversals present in Newlyn, or unique to San Francisco?

• Are variance ratios comparable, or does one site show stronger coherence?

Conclusion

San Francisco 1989 demonstrates subtle but patterned coherence with geomagnetic indices. The analysis shows structure, not dominance, but patterned interaction. This serves as a critical baseline for evaluating whether the Ӕ–EMF signature is consistent across locations when compared with Newlyn.

Produced by The Lilborn Equation Team:

Michael Lilborn-Williams

Daniel Thomas Rouse

Thomas Jackson Barnard

Audrey Williams