There are lots of materials about ANS, e.g. gathered here: https://encode.su/threads/2078-List-of-Asymmetric-Numeral-Sy...

One can get grants in physics nearly only if being mainstream ...

Consa brings concrete arguments regarding g-factor, I still haven't seen any concrete explanation, only saying that it is fringe science because of criticism of mainstream ... but he quotes mainstream papers.

Mainstream censors non-mainstream, hence for half a century we are staying in place e.g. quantum gravity, there are appearing new problems ...

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-standard-particle-physics-brok...

The paper claims there are problems already with g-factor, could anybody explain why its objections are not valid?

Thanks, I will read, but generally beside e.g. the gravity problem, with increased accuracy there appear inaccuracies all over the standard model, so maybe it is worth revisiting QED? Are you saying the g-factor inaccuracies are not a problem?

https://phys.org/news/2022-05-standard-particle-physics-brok...

Indeed, e.g. of Dirac:

    “I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation because this so-called ’good theory’ does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, ignoring them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves disregarding a quantity when it is small – not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!. ”

and Feynman:

    "The shell game that we play is technically called ’renormalization’. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It’s surprising that the theory still hasn’t been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate.”