[mad aetherist (OP)]

I brort this over from the DePalma centrifuging aether thread, because the effect of the aetherwind on the LC & TD of their torsion balance is probly the cause of their 1 in 2000 sidereal drift found at their lab in Russia.
And this LC & TD effect must be a major cause of the embarrassing global big G discrepancy of 1 in 1000 (which is 10 to 40 times the stated margin for errors).

They have shown that the global discrepancy is linked also to latitude, which supports my aetherwind ideas re LC & TD having a peculiar secondary mechanical macro LC & TD effect (on clocks rods wires etc), eg the change in thickness of the wire in one direction (& hencely a diminishment of its torsion calibration).  This secondary macro effect is in addition to the standard well known Lorentz primary micro LC & TD effect (at the sub-atomic & atomic & intra-atomic levels).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Anyhow Einsteinian  teams measuring g at various places & times havent a clue why their results are so inconsistent.

You would need to cite evidence of inconsistencies before we needed to take this seriously.

Yes lots of teams in lots of countries using various instruments have had trouble getting consistent results for measuring g & G on the  surface of Earth. This is well known. I can look it up & start a new thread. 
My mention of this (in the OP i think) was because i reckon that one of the main problems (that they are ignorant of) is the aetherwind, plus the effect of the centrifuging of aether.
The aetherwind must affect LC & TD & upset their clocks etc, making their instruments erratic. Plus the changing aetherwind, changing during each day & season etc actually changes the value of g at any one location.
There is tonnes of stuff out there re this......
https://www.sheldrake.org/essays/how-the-universal-gravitational-constant-varies
https://phys.org/news/2015-04-gravitational-constant-vary.html

https://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0202/0202058.pdf  This shows that orientation can make a 0.054% difference in G.  But i reckon that the effect is only partly on G, it is partly an effect on their clock etc (instruments).

Experimental evidence that the gravitational constant varies with orientation.
by Mikhail L. Gershteyn∗†, Lev I. Gershteyn†, Arkady Gershteyn†, Oleg V. Karagioz‡
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, NW16-189, 167 Albany St., Cambridge, MA02139, U.S.
Tribotech division of National Institute of Aviation Technology  5-12 Pyrieva St.,Moscow 119285, Russia
Abstract..........  In 1687, Isaac Newton published the universal law of gravitation stating that two bodies attract each other with a force proportional to the product of their masses and the inverse square of the distance. The constant of proportionality, G, is one of the fundamental constants of nature. As the precision of measurements increased the disparity between the values of G, gathered by different groups, surprisingly increased [1-16]. This unique situation was reflected by the 1998 CODATA decision to increase the relative G uncertainty from 0.013% to 0.15 % [17]. Our repetitive measurements of the gravitational constant (G) show that G varies significantly with the orientation of the test masses relative to the system of fixed stars, as was predicted by the Attractive Universe Theory [18,19]. The distances between the test masses were in the decimeter range. We have observed that G changes with the orientation by at least 0.054%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

[mad aetherist (OP)]

In this paper below the authors call for measurements of big G at the poles & at the equator & at more latitudes particularly in the southern hemisphere.  Their finding of a latitude & longitude dependence is in accord with my aetherwind ideas, & my centrifuging of aether ideas.

Possible evidence from laboratory measurements for a latitude and longitude dependence of G.
J.P. Mbelek and M. Lachi`eze-Rey Service d’Astrophysique, C.E. Saclay
F-91191 Gif-sur-Yvette Cedex, France April 22, 2002
Abstract Stability arguments suggest that the Kaluza-Klein (KK) internal scalar field, Φ, should be coupled to some external fields. An external bulk real scalar field, ψ, minimally coupled to gravity is proved to be satisfactory. At low temperature, the coupling of ψ to the electromagnetic (EM) field allows Φ to be much stronger coupled to the EM field than in the genuine five dimensional KK theory. It is shown that the coupling of Φ to the geomagnetic field may explain the observed dispersion in laboratory measurements of the (effective) gravitational constant. The analysis takes into account the spatial variations of the geomagnetic field. Except the high PTB value, the predictions are found in good agreement with all of the experimental data.
http://cds.cern.ch/record/548033/files/0204064.pdf

[mad aetherist (OP)]

3-Space In-Flow Theory of Gravity: Boreholes, Blackholes and the Fine Structure Constant
Reginald T. Cahill -- School of Chemistry Physics and Earth Sciences, Flinders University Adelaide Australia
https://arxiv.org/pdf/physics/0512109.pdf
Abstract -- A theory of 3-space explains the phenomenon of gravity as arising from the time dependence and inhomogeneity of the differential flow of this 3-space. The emergent theory of gravity has two gravitational constants: GN — Newton’s constant, and a dimensionless constantα. Various experiments and astronomical observations have shown thatα is the fine structure constant ≈1/137. Here we analyse the Greenland Ice Shelf and Nevada Test Site borehole g anomalies, and confirm with increased precision this value ofα. This and other successful tests of this theory of gravity, including the supermassive blackholes in globular clusters and galaxies, and the“dark-matter”effect in spiral galaxies, shows the validity of this theory of gravity. This success implies that the non-relativistic Newtonian gravity was fundamentally flawed from the beginning, and that this flaw was inherited by the relativistic General Relativity theory of gravity.

Fig. 7: Results of precision measurements of GN published in the last sixty years in which the Newtonian theory was used to analyse the data. These results show the presence of a systematic effect, not in the Newtonian theory, of fractional size up to ∆GN/GN ≈α/4, which corresponded with the 1998 error bars on GN (outer dashed lines), with the full line being the current CODATA value ofGN=6.6742(10)Ă—10−11 m2s−2kg−1. In 2005 CODATA[20] reduced the error bars by a factor of 10 (innerdashed lines) on the basis of some recent experiments, and so neglecting the presence of the systematic effect.

[Bored chemist]

I brort this over from the DePalma centrifuging aether thread,

That's the thread where I showed that you are mistaken.

Yes lots of teams in lots of countries using various instruments have had trouble getting consistent results for measuring g

I already explained why that's nonsense.
Starting a new thread doesn't make it any better; it just suggests that you are trolling.

[evan_au]

aetherwind ... must be a major cause of the embarrassing global big G discrepancy

Also speculative (but possibly less so) is that time-varying changes in the density of the (theoretical) Dark Matter passing through the experiment might cause slight discrepancies in the measurement of G.

Although Dark Matter is something like 5 times denser than visible matter, the average density of Dark Matter in the Solar System must be pretty close to a good vacuum. 

[mad aetherist (OP)]

aetherwind ... must be a major cause of the embarrassing global big G discrepancy

Also speculative (but possibly less so) is that time-varying changes in the density of the (theoretical) Dark Matter passing through the experiment might cause slight discrepancies in the measurement of G.

Although Dark Matter is something like 5 times denser than visible matter, the average density of Dark Matter in the Solar System must be pretty close to a good vacuum.

I like the idea that free neutrinos are one kind of DM, because they have mass, double the mass of a free photon, because free neutrinos are made of 2 joined free photons, 90 180 deg out of phase, the emitted em fields cancelling, hencely neutrinos have a nett associated em field with zero values at all points at all times, & cant be seen by the human eye.
Free neutrinos can form confined neutrinos by forming a loop, & the resulting dark particle has zero nett charge & zero nett em fields, a second kind of DM.
If dark particles can somehow aggregate (praps gravitationally) then they can form dark planets, or if containing electrons & protons can form a semi-dark planet. This matter would be much denser than common matter.
I wonder whether neutrons are made of neutrinos. I will havtahav a think.
 
Re DM causing problems with measurements of G, i am thinking that DM would be unlikely to affect measurements unless the DM was mobile on a praps daily or seasonal basis.  Here the DM would affect the mass.
My aetherwind etc effects are LC & TD effects that primarily affect measurements of the X by affecting ticking etc & secondarily might affect the actual X itself.

Re DM passing throo an X i suppose that DM would be mobile because it would be little affected by electrostatic or electrodynamic forces, but it would be affected by gravitational forces (pretty weak if particles are small).

[Bored chemist]

because free neutrinos are made of 2 joined free photons, 90 deg out of phase,

No
If you add together photons that are 90 degrees out of phase you get circularly polarised light.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization

Please learn some science

[mad aetherist (OP)]

because free neutrinos are made of 2 joined free photons, 90 deg out of phase,

No If you add together photons that are 90 degrees out of phase you get circularly polarised light. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_polarization Please learn some science

Yes u are correct, i knew 90 deg was wrong & i have now changed it to 180 deg.

Its interesting how the two photons might join.  If the central helical bodies of each photon are considered to act like coils then if the coils have the same handedness & size etc the coils can of course easily fit inside each other.  All of us who have used such a binding machine to make lots of such books know that.  And if two such coils (photons) are held so that they share the same axis & are also evenly separated then u have your little neutrino.  And the two fields then cancel to give a nett zero field(s). I learnt this off Conrad Ranzan, i aint sure whether he invented it, Conrad gets most of his atomic stuff off J G Williamson. 

This means that we might have left handed photons & right handed photons.  Likewize neutrinos.
I dont know whether lefts can annihilate rights. Or whether there are some strange interactions possible between lefts & rights.
And for that matter whether interactions are possible between photons & neutrinos (doubled photons).
And whether it might be possible for 3 photons to join to make a different kind of neutrino.
Or 4 photons might join.
I feel a Nobel coming on.

[Bored chemist]

Yes u are correct, i knew 90 deg was wrong & i have now changed it to 180 deg.

That's still wrong.
If they were then they could be split apart again by traveling through an optically active medium.
Sugar crystals would glow

Why don't you learn some science.

[Bored chemist]

I feel a Nobel coming on.

Not even good enough for an ig nobel prize.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Yes u are correct, i knew 90 deg was wrong & i have now changed it to 180 deg.

That's still wrong. If they were then they could be split apart again by traveling through an optically active medium. Sugar crystals would glow. Why don't you learn some science.

Hmmmm -- man u sure make me think, & u have a habit of putting your finger on some spots i didnt know existed, albeit accidentally much of the time, & here u have done it again.  I look at things backwards sometimes, to help overcome prejudices that are so ingrained that they are invisible. When u said "then they could be split apart again" i, naturally, reversed it.  I thort no. They cant be split apart again. Because they were together in the beginning. In other words neutrinos are not a coming together of photons, photons are a coming apart of neutrinos.  See?

U are a scientist. How many atomic reactions result in a pair of photons?  I think that pairs of photons are no longer questioned, they have become family, just as reliable as the chair that the scientist sits on. No-one examines the chair. No-one has a closer look at the pair of free photons.

The free photons come from the death of a free neutrino.  The free neutrino comes from the death of a confined neutrino (called a neutron).  I will be happy to share our Nobel.

Re sugar, i dont allow any in the house. Likewise fruit (sugar balls).

[Kryptid]

The free photons come from the death of a free neutrino.

Not when they result, for example, from the annihilation between an electron and positron...

[mad aetherist (OP)]

The free photons come from the death of a free neutrino.

Not when they result, for example, from the annihilation between an electron and positron...

Yes my wording was sloppy, & my thinking too.  Yes if an electron is a confined photon then annihilation will give a say right-handed free photon, & i guess a positron will give a free photon with the opposite helix, eg left handed.

And neutrons if made of confined neutrinos would need the strong force holding the confined neutrinos together to be gravitational, what with the neutrinos having zero nett charge.

[Kryptid]

Yes if an electron is a confined photon

That would violate conservation of electric charge.

And neutrons if made of confined neutrinos would need the strong force

Neutrons are made of a triplet of quarks, not neutrinos. And no, that's not just theoretical. We know it from the results of particle scattering experiments.

[evan_au]

If dark particles can somehow aggregate (praps gravitationally) then they can form dark planets,

The most popular current theory of Dark Matter is that it consists of some subatomic particle which almost never interacts with normal matter (even less than the ghostly neutrinos).

These hypothetical Dark Matter particles would feel the tug of gravity, but that is not enough to cause them to aggregate - you need one or more forces which can cause Dark Matter particles to interact with each other, and radiate away the energy of their gravitational aggregation.

This theory cannot tell us if there is such a "Dark Force" which is felt by Dark Matter, but not by normal matter. But if such forces existed, then you could produce a "Dark Planet" or a "Dark Periodic Table".
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Dark_matter_aggregation_and_dense_dark_matter_objects

[mad aetherist (OP)]

Yes if an electron is a confined photon

That would violate conservation of electric charge.

And neutrons if made of confined neutrinos would need the strong force

Neutrons are made of a triplet of quarks, not neutrinos. And no, that's not just theoretical. We know it from the results of particle scattering experiments.

Yes, but if the quarks are dark quarks then they would only aggregate by virtue of gravitation.
And re conservation of electric charge, Williamson's many papers describe how a confined photon emits only a half of its "charge" hencely giving positive or negative.

[mad aetherist (OP)]

If dark particles can somehow aggregate (praps gravitationally) then they can form dark planets,

The most popular current theory of Dark Matter is that it consists of some subatomic particle which almost never interacts with normal matter (even less than the ghostly neutrinos).
These hypothetical Dark Matter particles would feel the tug of gravity, but that is not enough to cause them to aggregate - you need one or more forces which can cause Dark Matter particles to interact with each other, and radiate away the energy of their gravitational aggregation.
This theory cannot tell us if there is such a "Dark Force" which is felt by Dark Matter, but not by normal matter. But if such forces existed, then you could produce a "Dark Planet" or a "Dark Periodic Table".
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Dark_matter_aggregation_and_dense_dark_matter_objects

I had a look at that. It is rubbish.
The only way that dark particles can interact is via gravity. And the only possible dark particle is the neutrino (two kinds)(free & confined).
Except that all particles & all non-particles (photons)(& neutrinos) radiate em radiation, ie photaenos.  And neutrinos are affected by feedback from their emitted photaenos (photaenos suffer photaeno drag) (slowing the photon or neutrino).

[Kryptid]

Yes, but if the quarks are dark quarks then they would only aggregate by virtue of gravitation.

What are "dark quarks"? Something you made up? If neutrons were held together by gravitation, then it would be possible to split them into their individual components. Yet you can't. That's the phenomenon of quark confinement.

And re conservation of electric charge, Williamson's many papers describe how a confined photon emits only a half of its "charge" hencely giving positive or negative.

That makes no sense. How is a particle supposed to be capable of hiding its charge? If it has charge, then it must have an electric field associated with it.

[jeffreyH]

Dark quarks? You can't just join up disparate words and phrases and hope something scientific pops out. There are some decent books on particle physics if you really want to know what you are talking about. I doubt if you do. That means applying yourself and actually doing some study. Don't you have any gardening to do?

[Bored chemist]

Hmmmm -- man u sure make me think,

Good.
Now start doing it before you post.

have a habit of putting your finger on some spots i didnt know existed, albeit accidentally much of the time, & here u have done it again

I keep telling you to learn some science.

Here's another thing you probably didn't think about.
The redefinition of the Kg was fairly widely reported.
They plan to replace the prototype  lump of metal with a definition in terms of Planck's constant.
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1708.02473.pdf

One aspect of that redefinition is that you need to measure g (and the rate at which it changes with height) to about a part in a billion.
https://www.nist.gov/publications/determination-local-acceleration-gravity-nist-4-watt-balance

And yet, you are claiming that the people who really know about measuring stuff have decided to do away with a physical standard in favour of something they can't measure.

That's clearly nonsense.