the author sends obsessed with the fact sooner people didn't shows their work, meaning everything collapses -- but people since then have got the same result but different calculations.
everyone in the field knows QED is full of weird Martha's, and isn't the " answer to everything", but no one has a better answer, and it does produce results which line up with reality.
yes, I agree there paper is nonsense.
versus
everyone in the field knows QED is full of weird Martha's, and isn't the " answer to everything", but no one has a better answer
It isn’t the answer to everything because the electromagnetic force isn’t the only fundamental interaction and we don’t have a theory of everything. But QED explains one of the fundamental interactions far better than the paper tries to paint it. See The Relativity of Wrong by Isaac Asimov.
I think the linked article agrees with you that QED is well tested.
Their point (IMO) is that there is one free parameter in QED that was not highlighted as such. There is nothing wrong in free parameters, we know very little of the universe. As far I know there are free parameters in the standard model, but it is clearly stated as such so there is no problem.
https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/172846/free-para...