<html><head><style>body{font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px}</style></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space;"><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; ">Dear Oliver,</div><div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><br></div><div style="margin: 0px;">Thank you for your report. I share your sentiments and express my displeasure in the following way. "<i style="font-family: Helvetica, Arial; font-size: 13px;">QED seems very good in obtaining an expression for the anomalous magnetic moment of an electron, that differs from the actual by about 1%, yet in another field it requires the universe to have an energy density of ≈ 10^120 higher than is measured</i>". I guess that is one of "<font face="NimbusRomNo9L" size="3"><b>The problem of infinities</b></font><font face="NimbusRomNo9L">”</font><font face="NimbusRomNo9L" size="3">. I am of the opinion that it is better to have a theory that explains the 10^-10 J/m^3 density of the universe and differs by about 1% for the observed value of the electron’s magnetic moment, than to have something that differs by 10^120 but accurately explains an error of ≈ 1%</font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L" size="3"><br></font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L" size="3">Cheers,</font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L" size="3"><br></font></div><div style="margin: 0px;"><font face="NimbusRomNo9L" size="3">Vivian Robinson</font></div>
<div style="font-family:Helvetica,Arial;font-size:13px; "><span style="font-family: NimbusRomNo9L; font-size: 10pt;"> </span> </div> <br> <div class="gmail_signature"></div> <br><p class="airmail_on">On 11 March 2020 at 7:12:36 AM, oliver consa (<a href="mailto:oliver.consa@gmail.com">oliver.consa@gmail.com</a>) wrote:</p> <blockquote type="cite" class="clean_bq"><span><div><div></div><div>
<title></title>
<div dir="ltr">Dear fellow scientist,<br>
<br>
I send you this mail because you have been skeptical about
Foundations of Physics. I think that this new paper will be of your
interest. Feel free to share it with your colleagues or publish it
on the web. I consider it important that this paper serves to open
a public debate on this subject.<br>
<br>
<br>
<b>Something is Rotten in the State of QED</b><br>
<a href="https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0011v1.pdf" target="_blank">https://vixra.org/pdf/2002.0011v1.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Abstract<br>
<i>"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 (g-factor). 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." (12 pag.)</i><br>
<br>
<br>
Best Regards,<br>
Oliver Consa<br>
<a href="mailto:oliver.consa@gmail.com" target="_blank">oliver.consa@gmail.com</a><br></div>
_______________________________________________
<br>If you no longer wish to receive communication from the Nature of Light and Particles General Discussion List at viv@universephysics.com
<br><a href="http://lists.natureoflightandparticles.org/options.cgi/general-natureoflightandparticles.org/viv%40universephysics.com?unsub=1&unsubconfirm=1">
<br>Click here to unsubscribe
<br></a>
<br></div></div></span></blockquote></body></html>