At the FQXi thread that Ray Munroe pointed out, sockpuppet "Mark" gives Ray his word that there is not a trace of numerology in Mohamed El Naschie’s work:
Mark wrote on Feb. 25, 2010 @ 12:07 GMT
One of the most painful lies which was systematically and intentionally spread about the work in E-infinity theory is this nonsense with numerology. You have my word that there is not a trace of numerology in Mohamed El Naschie’s work. You more than anyone else should have noticed that the attack on El Naschie started in earnest only after the publication of Renate Loll’s paper in Scientific American. You can read all about that in the comments in the Daily Telegraph [archived here] and in Scientific American. El Naschie is the only one who said that the golden mean is at the core of quantum mechanics fifteen years or more ago. Now that this is experimentally verified, it should be blatantly clear that he should be rehabilitated. Yet you see yourself what is happening. With all due respect Ray, and all your love for peace with your colleagues, you use an incredible argument, namely that Mohamed El Naschie wrote so much about the golden mean so that we can ignore what he has written about the golden mean. I am sure you did not mean that, but that is how it sounds. El Naschie has been a thorn in the eye [sic. side] of certain groups for a long time. Two decades ago he was proposed as a successor to Abdu Salam [sic. Abdus Salam, a Nobel Laureate] in Trieste [ICTP in Trieste]. Nobel Laureate David Gross went on the barricades to block this nomination. You know very well how close Nobel Laureate Gerard ‘tHooft was to El Naschie. Again you know that Renate Loll is ‘tHooft’s right hand person. Before going to Holland she worked in the Max Blanc [sic. Mel Planck] Inst. in Berlin. Mohamed was invited to the Max Blanc Inst. and gave a lecture there. He was the first to speak about Cantor sets in quantum mechanics. He was told then that this was totally esoteric. There were other people present in Berlin during this incident. Less than five years later Renate Loll comes and proclaims in Scientific American that she and her group have discovered the building blocks of quantum spacetime, namely random Cantor sets. The history of plagiarizing the work of El Naschie and his group is long and painful. Mohamed discovered transfinite E8 several years before Lisi. He worked with Cantor sets before Renate Loll ever heard about the words or the notion. Do you call El Naschie Watch a blog or a center for internet criminals? [Call me anything, just don't call me late for dinner.] Despite all of that, Mohamed El Naschie remains a central political and scientific role model for most of the youth in Egypt and Arabia. [True, and sad.] The attack on El Naschie is enshrined forever in the history of infamous plagiarization and character assassination. You pose to me any logical, precise question about El Naschie’s theory and I promise to give you a concise, clear answer which has nothing to do with numerology. [Anyone up to the challenge?] Maybe you should start by reading L. Marek-Crnjac’s paper On the vital difference between number theory and numerology published in CS&F. I hope you do not mind that I speak plainly. It is all went meant [sic. well meant].
Best regards, Mark
Personal assurances from sockpuppets -- what a concept.
Notice the droll mistake we've seen before among Naschienal Socialists: Confusing Max Planck (physicist) with Mel Blanc (Daffy Duck/Porky Pig cartoon voice).
Mark says "Two decades ago he was proposed as a successor to Abdu Salam [sic. Abdus Salam, a Nobel Laureate] in Trieste [ICTP in Trieste]. Nobel Laureate David Gross went on the barricades to block this nomination." which was something I didn't know. Good for David Gross! His name reminded me of a comment from Shrink a while back, where he ridicules a sockpuppet's assertion that El Naschie's critics aren't competent to judge the Great Man's work. I'm expanding on what Shrink said and adding links in context:
Bloggers Peter Woit and Luboš Motl are always at each other's throats about string theory, as we remarked in Luboš Motl on crackpottery in physics, but there is one thing they agree upon: El Naschie is not to be taken seriously.
Here's Peter Woit:
[El Naschie's papers] are extremely impressive papers. One might wonder how they got published in an Elsevier journal, since such journals are known for their high prices and correspondingly high editorial standards. The journal is online (if you are at an institution that sends big bucks to Elsevier) at
The fact that the editor is named M.S. El Naschie may have something to do with why it publishes all those papers.
And here's Luboš Motl:
Meanwhile, if you want to be really entertained, Eddington's science was revived by a scientist in Saudi Arabia. M.S. El Naschie wrote "On D. Gross’ criticism of S. Eddington and an exact calculation of alpha=1/137" in 2007. It is so much fun that I copy the full abstract here:
"While Sir Arthur Stanley Eddington attempts to derive alpha=1/137 mathematically may be considered to be a stretch, as correctly noted by Nobel laureate David Gross, in the meantime such a theoretical derivation is possible and feasible. In the present work, we show that the inverse electromagnetic fine structure constant may be derived in various ways using a combination of the Green, Shwarz, Witten and Gross string theory and the ‘t Hooft-Susskind and Maldacena holographic principles."
Besides the 136 science, you must also learn about "Shwarz" [sic], "Gross string theory", whatever it exactly is, and double the number of holographic principles. But once you do it, you may derive Eddington's numerology from string theory. Some people are simply loons and Elsevier Ltd happily prints them in peer-reviewed journals.
This may be the only thing Peter Woit and Luboš Motl have ever agreed about. Luboš's enmity for Woit is so great that he refuses clicks from Woit's blog, and refers to him frequently as "an enemy of science".
محمد النشائي All El Naschie All The Time محمد النشائى