According to NIST, the g-factor of the electron is:

electron g factor
Value	-2.0023193043737
Standard uncertainty	0.0000000000082
Relative standard uncertainty	4.1x10-12
Concise form	-2.0023193043737(82)

and NIST gives the magnetic moment of the electron as:

electron magnetic moment
Value	-928.476362x10-26 JT-1
Standard uncertainty	0.000037x10-26 JT-1
Rel standard uncertainty	4.0x10-8
Concise form	-928.476362(37)x10-26 JT-1

The quantum dimensions equation for electron magnetic moment in single charge dimensions is:

electron gyromagnetic ratio
Value	1.760859794x1011 s-1 T-1
Standard uncertainty	0.000000071x1011 s-1 T-1
Rel standard uncertainty	4.0x10-8
Concise form	1.760859794(71)x1011 s-1 T-1

According to NIST the electron gyromagnetic moment is given as a positive value by taking the absolute value of electron magnetic moment, which was made negative by the negative g-factor for the electron. The negative value for the g-factor is supposedly based on the negative charge of the electron. But then what logic would make the neutron g-factor negative? Can the electron and neutron g-factors be negative from different causes? That doesn't seem likely. As seen below, there is no mathematical reason for the electron g-factor to be negative, and now I believe it is unlikely for the neutron g-factor to be negative, too.

While researching the physics of time,I found that Phi and phi are related to time. Phi is the Golden Ratio. It turns out that the electron g-factor is due to the stretching of spacetime as the electron spins at the speed of light. Mathematically, the electron g-factor represents in the Aether Physics Model as:

and the proton g-factor represents in the Aether Physics Model as:

Using Phi = Φ and phi = φ, the electron g-factor may relate to the proton and neutron g-factors as:

The above relationship may not be true.  It is unclear to me why there would be a reduction constant for the products of the proton and neutron g-factors.  If the above relationship is true for the APM values of the electron and proton g-factors, then the APM neutron g-factor would quantify as:

In the previous equations and based upon the mainstream values, notice how the electron g-factor depends upon electron magnetic moment, and electron magnetic moment depends on the electron g-factor. Modern science has not yet found the true cause of the g-factor.

Further, the above value for the NIST value of the electron g-factor was published during 2003, when I originally posted this page.  However, the present published value of the NIST electron g-factor is different:

electron g factor
Value	-2.002 319 304 3622
Standard uncertainty	0.000 000 000 0015
Relative standard uncertainty	7.4 x 10-13
Concise form	-2.002 319 304 3622(15)

The present NIST published value (10/13/2010) of the electron g-factor is 115 parts smaller than the earlier published value.  However, as can be seen above, NIST published the 2003 Standard Uncertainty as being only 82 parts.  Thus the present published value is outside the previously published uncertainty expectation.  This indicates that even the uncertainty is uncertain.  The present NIST electron g-factor value claims to have an uncertainty of only 15 parts... for now.

Further yet, mainstream physics claims the g-factors of the electron and neutron are negative values.  It is claimed these negative values relate to the negative electrostatic charge of the electron.  The only way the dimensionless electron and neutron g-values could have a negative value, which is based upon the electron's negative charge, is if the g-factors were themselves electrical units.  They are not.  The g-factors are a dimensionless precession of the magnetic moment; a dwell angle of sorts.  A precession is a forward or backward angle shift caused by an underlying twist in the structure holding the subatomic particle (Aether). In order for the electron charge (which is arbitrarily labeled as negative to begin with) to have a twist, the twist would have to be inherent to the electron.  The twist would also have to be along the electron's polar axis in the opposite direction of a similar positive charge in the proton.  

Another problem with the NIST negative values for the electron and neutron based upon the electron's negative charge is that the neutron g-factor has a stronger deviation from zero than does the electron g-factor.  This means the neutral charged neutron would exhibit a stronger negative charge related twist than would a true negative charged electron. Thus it is unlikely the charge of the particles have any bearing on the twist direction of the particles, if there is any backward twist at all.

According to the APM, the g-factor precession is a spiral twist, hence its quantification according to the sine of the Golden Ratio.  According to the APM, this twist has nothing to do with the electron charge, but rather the structure of the Aether units in which the subatomic particles reside.  

Also, as described on the magnetic moment page, NIST appears to have messed up on the value of the neutron magnetic moment and neutron g-factor as well.

Also, as described on the magnetic moment page, NIST appears to have messed up on the value of the neutron magnetic moment and neutron g-factor as well.

Reference:

Eric W. Weisstein scienceworld.wolfram.com
The NIST Reference on Constants, Units, and Uncertainty