According to BG this variation in the vertical vs horizontal position of the interferometer is supported by information in Pakhomov's Neutrino book.
The church of SM physics


Or it could be measuring the sag in the mirror support to a very high degree of accuracy.

One of the comments on the expanded M&M experiment was by a Russian researcher who appears familiar with this type of thing. He says this:
QuoteCompletely new discovery.. Please wide your knowledge, and I’ll try to help you ) here’s nothing about gravity or daytime, it is only about sensitivity of interferometer itself. So a very very tiny movement source of light caused by vertical position will move waves of lights in both directions. Just for a good example of such experiment I will add the link https://youtu.be/HfkLWb5oIIw it is in Russian, but you’ll understand for sure, no doubt. You’re welcome
I take it that he is saying that movement against gravity is effecting the laser position slightly and causing the interference pattern movement, but I'm not sure.
Can anyone who knows Russian summarize what he is saying in his youtube video? Thanks in advance!


Spotted by Bob Greenyer, an adventure in 4D mathematics that supports the possibility of EVO's
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the existence of solutions of Cauchy Riemann's conditions in 4D occurs or, if
you wish, of "waves", what I have called elsewhere "waves of charge" . These, whose physical
existence remains to be demonstrated, are nothing more than a generalization of ordinary
electromagnetic waves. They can therefore be "neutral", or equipped in various ways with
mass, charge, spin. I have made some examples but much more could be studied.
In physics, someone said, what is not strictly prohibited happens.

Spotted by Bob Greenyer, an adventure in 4D mathematics that supports the possibility of EVO's
CONCLUSIONS
In conclusion, the existence of solutions of Cauchy Riemann's conditions in 4D occurs or, if
you wish, of "waves", what I have called elsewhere "waves of charge" . These, whose physical
existence remains to be demonstrated, are nothing more than a generalization of ordinary
electromagnetic waves. They can therefore be "neutral", or equipped in various ways with
mass, charge, spin. I have made some examples but much more could be studied.
In physics, someone said, what is not strictly prohibited happens.
This meets squarely (or should I say Toroidally?) with Wyttenbach's model, or at least is in the same ball park.
Or I am completely wrong Wyttenbach ?

Or I am completely wrong Wyttenbach?
One more try. SO(4) has 5 rotations 6D and we need all! Needs a bit more math.

Florida State University physicists believe they have an answer to unusual incidents of rare decay of a subatomic particle called a Kaon that were reported last year by scientists in the KOTO experiment at the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex.
FSU Associate Professor of Physics Takemichi Okui and Assistant Professor of Physics Kohsaku Tobioka published a new paper in the journal Physical Review Letters that proposes that this decay is actually a new, shortlived particle that has avoided detection in similar experiments.
"This is such a rare disintegration," Okui said. "It's so rare, that they should not have seen any. But if this is correct, how do we explain it? We think this is one possibility."
Kaons are particles made of one quark and one antiquark. Researchers study how they function—which includes their decay—as a way to better understand how the world works. But last year, researchers in the KOTO experiment reported four instances of a particular rare decay that should have been too rare to be detected yet.
This observation violates the standard model of physics that explains the basic fundamental forces of the universe and classifies all known elementary particles.

RIP Freeman Dyson.  A physicist unafraid of holding controversial views on the standard model.
The mathematical physicist and public intellectual Freeman Dyson has died at age 96 today. He spent most of his professional career at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey where he was Professor Emeritus.
Born in Crowthorne, Berkshire in 1923, Dyson obtained a BA in mathematics from the University of Cambridge. He then moved to the US where he studied for a doctorate with Hans Bethe at Cornell University. However, he did not complete his degree and went on to be one of the world’s most famous physicists despite not having a PhD.
Dyson’s early work focused on quantum electrodynamics and he also applied mathematics to the study of nuclear reactors, solid state physics, ferromagnetism, astrophysics and biology. He is the author of several popular books on physics.

Any comment ?
"Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (gfactor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been
conducted from the creation of QED through today."

"Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (gfactor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks.
What they did is simple to sum up: The tried to "calculate in" all known virtual particle interactions by using more than 10'000 Feynman diagrams. The main problem is that most virtual partial interaction of course must be gauged separately and are only only known between 1 and 4 digits exact. Summing 10'000 linear equation gives a systematic error of at least 2log(10000) = 14 what is at least 1.4 decimal digits.
Fraud has been involved when they did underlay these 10000 perturbations by infinite series or function to mimic infinite precision.
To make it short: QED has some merits in high and ultra high energy physics to find classic viral connections between different measurements. As a model for dense matter QED simply is fringe physics as it claims all it sees being a perturbation of the proton perturbative (3 rotation) mass only that is about 1.2% of the protons mass.

Any comment ?
"Quantum electrodynamics (QED) is considered the most accurate theory in the history of science. However, this precision is based on a single experimental value: the anomalous magnetic moment of the electron (gfactor). An examination of QED history reveals that this value was obtained using illegitimate mathematical traps, manipulations and tricks. These traps included the fraud of Kroll & Karplus, who acknowledged that they lied in their presentation of the most relevant calculation in QED history. As we will demonstrate in this paper, the Kroll & Karplus scandal was not a unique event. Instead, the scandal represented the fraudulent manner in which physics has been
conducted from the creation of QED through today."
This is a vixra published paper not surprisingly because it has all the intellectual rigor of Brexiteer arguments in the UK prereferendum.
And it has equally as strong an emotional appeal  hence will convince many.
It proceeds through:
1) Viewing theoretically necessary higher order corrections as fudge factors.
Absurd when they come from the theory and were predicted from the start  just not calculated until needed. That "not calculated till needed" aspect is seen as evidence of fraud (yes, fraud  ridiculous and farfetched) by the author. However given the difficulty of any such calculations it is only what you would expect. Who would spend two years full time work just to make a correction in a value that is expected to be well within experimental error and therefore untestable?
2) Arguing that so many Feynman diagrams seem overcomplex.
Agreed, and in the recent discovery of the amplitudehedron we have found must faster techniques to calculate the exact same answer from FDs. That is still not understood, and maybe when it is some deeper mathermatical structure will emerge that makes much of the current calculation horriblemess go away. Where I don't agree, and the amplitudehedron bears this out, is that there is therefore anything wrong with the theory. Why no mention in this paper of that? It is new research centrally relevant to any argument based on FD complexity.
3) Criticising modern QED based on its early history.
Very few scientific theories emerge in correct entirety at first, they proceed through muddle, errors that almost work, argument.
4) Criticising QED based on its relationship to QM
That is just dinosaurlike behaviour. Sure, QM is counterintuitive. But as we understand it more, so we see that the counterintuitive yet consistent and very beautiful elements underlie all of physics as we know it. That spacetime and GR can be derived from quantum entanglement is the great scientific discovery we are currently living through. In any case, philosophically, requiring physics to be intuitive is unjustified. Why should all scales of interaction look like our evolutionary relevant spatial interactions with a macroscopic environment? Of course they need not. GR shows they do not at large scale, QM shows they do not at small scale.
5) Criticising QM based on a dissatisfaction with renormalisation
This is something I can agree with. Renormalisation at the level of ignoring infinities "just because it works" is highly unsatisfactory. But for a long time now we have a better understanding of renormalisation which is mathematically rigorous.
Great short pop link which captures the essense of this: as mathematiciens have understood for 100 years in analysis, it is all about taking limits in a well founded way. Possible, but rigor requires care and proper maths.
https://www.volkerschatz.com/science/renorm.html
The proper mathematical treatment of renormalisation as regularisation was not formulated till 1995 (Weinburg).
The big nono about Consa's paper is the lack of a proper literature review beyond 1970. If he had done this he would at least mention regularisation, as a way to understand fully renormalisation, spacetime generation from QM as evidence that however counterintiuitive QM might be, it is fundamental to the universe, etc, etc.
The sad fact is that those mavericks who look back to old semiclassical models of physics because they reject modern physics (normally from a visceral dislike of QM and a het of the complexity of QED calculations) selectively cite evidence from 1970 onwards, omitting the stuff that backs these theories and misrepresenting other things (like the timing of higher order calculations).
I get pretty annoyed at it. When Consa calls large numbers of other scientists fraudulent he is behaving very badly. When he publishes popular summaries like this he is being intellectually dishonest, and showing poor scholarship, at the very least.
He is also putting young minds off thinking about the incredibly exciting developments now happening in theoretical physics, all based on QM and the SM. It is these things, unifying QM and GR, that have the capability, eventually, of giving us much better understanding of all the SM symmetries and results, with a better underlying model.
What is a shame, is throwing away half of the stuff that works, and also that has shown itself capable of making fundamental predictions, because you either cannot be bothered to read, or do not understand, the last 30 years of physics.

Any comment ?
I have a soft spot for Ramanujan..
Perhaps Consa is being inflammatory when he asserts .
"
According to an illegitimate mathematical demonstration conducted by the Indian mathematician Ramanujan,
the result of the sum of
all positive integers is not infinite, but 1/12 [2]:External Content www.youtube.comContent embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.Perhaps he might use the words "nonrigorous" rather than "illegitimate" and 'Euler ' rather than 'Ramanujan'
as in his reference 2..Baez
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/qgwinter2004/zeta.pd"
use Euler’s nonrigorous argument to compute
(−2) = 1^{2} + 2^{2 }+ 3^{2} + 4^{2} + · · to infinity"Namaste

What is a shame, is throwing away half of the stuff that works, and also that has shown itself capable of making fundamental predictions, because you either cannot be bothered to read, or do not understand, the last 30 years of physics.
It's a shame too that you still believe and tell people that SM makes predictions. This is structurally and mathematically impossible as SM needs gauging. To predict "there is a particle with some properties" called (a,b,c) and unknown hidden properties (d,e,f,g,h,) is just educated guessing and nothing else. A predicion by definition is exact other wise its on the same level as gossip.
SM is based on closed math algebra and by the basic rule of calculous theory unable to describe a communicating (= stateful interacting) system.
Already Einstein did know that GER is restricted to the very close proximity if you don't want to deal with empty space only ...
unifying QM and GR,
Is thus just nonsensical.

It's a shame too that you still believe and tell people that SM makes predictions. This is structurally and mathematically impossible as SM needs gauging. To predict "there is a particle with some properties" called (a,b,c) and unknown hidden properties (d,e,f,g,h,) is just educated guessing and nothing else. A predicion by definition is exact other wise its on the same level as gossip.
SM is based on closed math algebra and by the basic rule of calculous theory unable to describe a communicating (= stateful interacting) system.
Already Einstein did know that GER is restricted to the very close proximity if you don't want to deal with empty space only ...
Is thus just nonsensical.
So this is what?
Coincidence?

So this is what?
Coincidence?What do you want to tell us??
Try first to understand information & computation theory. Any physics model that cannot be computed is not a real model as it cannot be falsified within finite time.
Any model that can be reduced to one tightly connected formalism  group algebra  is not able to reproduce reality.
Time can only be expressed as a partial ordered set of events this also holds for physics of course. If two masses do communicate  go into resonance  they mutually change their time vector in a non linear way what is equivalent to no finite method to quantify the real interaction exists. > you need to quantize (in a number of bits) any physical quantity what already leads to a possible tree of interactions and basically invalidates group logic. The only thing that did work out in reality is exchanging states by packets (quanta!) But in a system with n parts this leads to n! possible follow up paths what simply is not computable even with future quantum computers.
Only idiots can believe that they can derive time from any other structure as time in reality never exists and just is an approximation for identical and repeating events. Spooky action at distance is definitely outside QM & GER and needs a higher dimensional approach for space.
But as true believer of the SM church you have to reproduce your faith and thus we have to forgive you...
By the way: When will you, based on the best physics model ever, QED/LQCD give us a formula that exactly related the proton charge radius, magnetic moment and its mass? Year 4444?

because you either cannot be bothered to read, or do not understand, the last 30 years of physics.
I was trying to find a standard model coherent explanation for the binding energy in He4..
Nogga's 2002 explanation is based on using form factors based on previous He3 /3H models which are discrepant with experimental values..
https://arxiv.org/pdf/nuclth/0112026.pdf
is there a model which explains the binding energy of bth He3 and He4 with at least 3 figure precision?
after 18 years..

Only idiots can believe that they can derive time from any other structure as time in reality never exists and just is an approximation for identical and repeating events. Spooky action at distance is definitely outside QM & GER and needs a higher dimensional approach for space.
I'm not sure what is your content here, other than to insult people, and agree with me?
Only idiots can believe that they can derive time from any other structure as time in reality never exists
That is not a helpful comment. If you reckon spacetime (and causality) derives from quantum entanglement then certainly time is an approximation and "it does not really exist" but it is nevertheless an incredibly useful approximation. Distinguishing between time and space, which is similar, is silly since
the two are provably strongly related. And spacetime can provably in quite a number of cases be derived from quantum entanglement (above reference).
Quantum entanglement is the basis of QM and GR. Call it outside if you like. And it needs a higher dimensional approach
So you are agreeing that QM (the most fundamental part of which is QE) is fundamental? Glad to hear that.

So you are agreeing that QM (the most fundamental part of which is QE) is fundamental?
QM is just a plain vanilla engineering method to level out Virial like structures (potentials) nothing more and nothing less.
QM can never be fundamental as it is, as said many times before, a closed formalism unable to describe an interacting system.
I'm not sure what is your content here, other than to insult people, and agree with me?
I'm not insulting anyone. If people are unable to understand, even if they are  in detail  told what to learn then "idiot" is a mild term. Should I say Monkeys ?
Of course you can always find a mathematical description to fold time into an infinity to finally explain entanglement. We in SO(4) physics do the same but the other way round where time becomes just a constant winding number (neither 0 nor an infinity, what provides a real solution!!) . The true problem is that these folks believe its possible to unify GER with any formalism about dense matter. But dense matter already moves at light speed in 4 dimension in average and only 2 are left over for relativity like treatment . Thus Einstein was Lucky that all the problems he seemed to solve had a symmetry and a 2D projection.
You can go on and prolongate the 90 years of dreaming for a single formula describing our reality.
By the way: When will you, based on the best physics model ever, QED/LQCD give us a formula that exactly related the proton charge radius, magnetic moment and its mass? Year 4444?
I can answer it for you: It will never happen as it is provably impossible...

The misconceptions of standard model (SM):
Spin:
SM believes that spin is just a binary quantity of multiples of + n*1/2. n (0,1,2,......)
Classically already Larmor precision adds a second spin component to any particle. Luckily for SM its orthogonal and an integer ratio. But if you now try to relate total spinning mass and spin you get a discrepancy. In SO(4) physics We have 5 spin dimensions each with real mass fraction associated not just a binary one.
Mass:
SM has no clue what mass is. Neither the structure nor the nature of mass is known. Thus SM cannot give any relation between kinetic particle behavior and particle properties at rest.
SO(4) physics defines all mass as interaction EM mass as all energy we see in the universe is by definition EM mass.
Forces:
SM defines forces without being able to measure them (e.g. electro weak, strong force).
Addhoc solutions to support unknown forces:
Gluons: Out of Nirwana a gluon should pop up and by the nature of its extremely high mass it should bind the quarks.
Bosons: Smaller forces should follow the same scheme based on Bosons.
Wonderful proof: At energies much higher than a gluon mass we see resonances of protons with targets. To convince the public such resonances were named particles...
Reality: All symmetrie EM mass can go into resonance.
End of nonsense:
The Higgs particle: The gluons that give the protons mass now get the mass from an other boson (Higgs) that ou! wonder needs no other particle to have its own mass. Unluckily there still is no equation (based on Higgs) to explain the mass of any real particle that forms our UNIVERSE!
Explantation: We do not have the computation power to do what ???? Regauge a gauged model ???
Reality: Protons and electrons seem to be the only massive stable particles. Their form factor and internal structure defines the nature of all unstable and stable particles as they can be derived from electron proton substructure. E.g. the Higgs particle is a simple proton relativistic mass resonance with one more rotation. The Lambda particle is a proton with 3 out of 9 excess rotation waves (Pion virtual mass ) etc...
What in fact sees/does SM ?
SM is based only on the 3 rotation proton perturbative mass waves. The mass of these 3 proton waves is identical with the sum of measured quark masses. Thus SM believes to understand physics based on 1.2% of the proton mass only  what finally explains all the silly models that have been invented the last 90 years. Unluckily for these physicists, that spoiled their live time, the SM math structure used SU(2)xSO(3)xU(1) does excellently fit the 3D/4D flux waves of the proton.
But anybody with a small grain of commons sense in mind should have noted that SM knows nothing about stable particles, cannot give their structure and is unable to relate the most basic thing like charge radius, magnetic moments and mass. To be fair protons are a set of binary puzzle stones like quarks, gluons... But still less complex than my first LEGO building...
Conclusion: We have the best physics model (QED,LQCD) ever ( THHuxleynew ) that knows nothing about reality that is made of stable particles.
Want to Advertise or Sponsor LENR Forum?
CLICK HERE to contact us.
CLICK HERE to contact us.