Agreed with this. There have been so many criticisms of QED and QCD by so many groups that there is nothing left of either subject. The new twenty first century theories are simpler and much more powerful, notably our own ECE theory. This is not an empty boast but the result of rigorous and very well known scientometrics, the most detailed study ever carried out of the impact of a major paradigm shift. QED and QCD are full of adjustables, unknowables, virtual particles, renormalization, dimensional regularization, and other grammatical jokes. So their claimed precision cannot possibly be the result of Baconian science. QCD specialists like ‘t Hooft, who indulge in the pastime of journal wrecking, are in reality third class druids, without a licence. An incredible amount of taxation is wasted on junk physics. At AIAS / UPITEC we do not take anything from the tax payer, and are far more productive than the dogmatic academic.

To: EMyrone@aol.com

Sent: 18/03/2017 13:11:35 GMT Standard Time

Subj: Re: Consa Theory of the ElectronSome weeks ago I obtained this email too and answered:

Dear Oliver Consa,

You are presenting an interesting calculation and we agree with your critique concerning QED. We did a derivation of the electronic g factor by ourselves in

http://aias.us/documents/uft/paper85.pdfOur result (eq. (1) in the above paper) is different from yours and others but differs only in the range of experimental uncertainty which is not so clearly defined for the latest digits as you explained.

Am 18.03.2017 um 12:50 schrieb EMyrone:

To Oliver Consa:

This is interesting and I am forwarding it to the group for discussion. There are several UFT papers on www.aias.us dealing with QED, and we have made our own calculation of the g factor of the electron. the latest being UFT357 using fluid electrodynamics. This gives the g factor of the electron to as many decimal places as the experimental claim. The experimental claim is criticised in UFT85. We have not considered QCD in detail as yet, but there may well be similarities between ECE2 and your theory. I will ask the group to have a look at it. In my opinion many aspects of standard physics are completely obsolete, including standard QED and QCD. We proceed by making our work available open source on www.aias.us and www.upitec.org. The scientometrics (feedback) show an intense and permanent interest from the best universities in the world (filtered statistics section of www.aias.us). At AIAS / UPITEC we try to be open minded about all new theories, and never to dismiss them without careful appraisal.

Myron Evans

Sent: 18/03/2017 10:04:11 GMT Standard Time

Subj: ” g-factor and the Helical Solenoid Electron Model ”Dear fellow scientist,

I send you this mail because you have shown some interest in Alternative Physics Theories.

I think that this new paper will be of your interest. If you do not appreciate the new ideas presented at this work, at least, I’m sure you will enjoy the section about “the true story of QED” and the Karplus&Kroll scandal.

“g-factor and the Helical Solenoid Electron Model”

http://gsjournal.net/Science-Journals/Research%20Papers-Quantum%20Theory%20/%20Particle%20Physics/Download/6799

http://vixra.org/abs/1702.0185A new model of the electron with Helical Solenoid geometry is presented. This new model is an extension of the Parson’s Ring Electron Model and the Hestenes’ Zitter Electron Model. In this new electron model, the g-factor appears as a simple consequence of the geometry of the electron. The calculation of the g-factor is performed in a simple manner and we obtain the value of 1.0011607. This value of the g-factor is more accurate that the value provided by the Schwinger’s factor.

Addicionaly, I attach you a summary table about the gfactor calculation, and a link to the previus work “Helical Model of the Electron” (http://vixra.org/abs/1408.0203)

Regards,

Oliver Consa

oliver.consa