Well, sometimes he can and sometimes he can't.
Let me explain what I mean by good versus bad numerology. Good numerology limits its attention to pure numbers or, if units are involved, they are natural. By natural units we mean charge of an electron; gravitational constant; planck length; speed of light in a vacuum; that sort of thing. Physicists like to set them equal to unity for simplicity. When they are taken to be different from 1, it's only to express them in SI, MKS, or whatever system is convenient.
When El Naschie attaches significance to something like this equation
on page 9 of String theory, exceptional Lie groups hierarchy and the structural constant of the universe, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals Vol. 35 (2008) pp. 7–12, he is merely adding some integers together. It's silly and irrelevant even if it's true, but as numerology it's unobjectionable.
Here is a more advanced example of acceptable numerology from the great man. (Pretend that the parentheses make sense.)
It's from page 16 of A review of E infinity theory and the mass spectrum of high energy particle physics, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals Vol. 19 (2004) pp. 209–236. El Naschie is making an assertion as to the value of the reciprocal fine structure constant, a unitless quantity. In this equation he claims an exact value for it in terms of the Golden Mean. I believe the fine structure constant is known accurately enough from experiment to disprove his equation, but that's not the point. This is fine numerology from Dr. El Naschie.
Shrink makes this remark:
Regarding the fine structure constant:
It is not truly a constant as it is energy dependent -- as Jure (who is a theoretical particle physicist currently working at CERN) points in his post in which he comments the Great Man's numerology:
Maybe the Great Man should consider to take a course for dummies regarding this topic:
This would make El Naschie's equation false. But in this post I am giving the great man credit if his equations satisfy the much more lenient constraint of being numerologically sensible. Actual correctness is not required.
But let us move along to the paper On John Nash's crumpled surface, Chaos, Solitons and Fractals Vol. 18 (2003) pp. 635–641, which we showed in Mohamed El Naschie and John Kenneth Galbraith. Specifically we are interested in the caption of figure 3 on page 4. Click the picture for a larger version.
El Naschie asks us to "Note" that the cosmic microwave background radiation temperature of 2.726K is very close to the pure number
ln 20/ln 3 = 2.72683302786... = Hausdorff dimension of the Menger sponge.
But K is not a natural unit. It's equal in size to a centigrade degree, which in turn comes from dividing the interval from freezing to boiling of water into 100 parts. Purely an historical artifact, not natural at all.
He also asks us to "Note" that if you multiply the Hausdorff dimension of the complement of the Menger sponge
3 - (ln 20/ln 3) = 0.2731669721391... by 1000, the result is very close to 273.15K, the freezing point of water. Again, K are not natural units, and 1000 isn't special in any case, except to the most hardened numerologist. And although the freezing point of water may be natural to a limnologist, it isn't to a physicist.
Finally, at the risk of beating a dead horse, I should mention that the temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation decreases with time from the Big Bang. It is not only not the particular Menger-sponge-related constant El Naschie claims it to be, it is not a constant at all. For fixed time it varies with direction in the sky.