El Naschie Discussion

If you want to know who is or who was Mohamed El Naschie then your best bet is to ask Prof. Alastair Walker. Prof. Walker was a member of the stability research group in University College, founded by Lord Chilver. He wrote the introduction to Prof. El Naschie's book on Stress, Stability and Chaos published 1990 by McGraw Hill. I think Walker was his thesis supervisor. Walker was last the Dean of Engineering in the University of Surrey. It is simple if you want to know the truth but of course, those who are asking these questions, do not want to know the truth.

I have a big surprise for you. Mohamed El Naschie did not write 350 papers, he wrote about 900 papers. I am not counting his papers published in Arabic. He is practically an authority on everything. A true renaissance man. Not an Einstein but a Leonardo da Vinci when you count his phenomenal knowledge of art, music, literature, history, politics and economy. Now how can anybody master so much? I cannot tell you but he definitely does not spend his time writing defamatory letters or slandering anybody. Of course he has the opportunity and the means to do what he wants to do but this is a necessary yet not sufficient condition to achieve excellence, for that you must have character as well as courage.

The best man to ask is Gerrard 'tHooft. He is a Nobel laureate in physics from 1990 or was it 1999? Any case Mohamed El Naschie dedicated a whole issue of Chaos, Solitons & Fractals to Prof. 'tHooft on the occasion of his birthday. He wrote a very nice Editorial about him so why go on guessing Dr. Baez? Just ask Prof. 'tHooft about his opinion. I would have thought this was the logical and more civilized way to go about things.

I have a simple question for Dr. John Baez. If Prof. Mohamed El Naschie's work is as horribly wrong as you are trying to convince us, why are people snatching his ideas? Why are you using his terminology and general philosophy? I think we can wait until heaven freezes and you will never give an answer, only second hand jokes and boring sarcasm with no meaning.

You guys should forget all about that. The whole thing is just a diversion. If Mohamed El Naschie is sufficiently slandered and discredited then anybody can help himself to his work and call it his own. That is the only rationale behind this campaign.

Suppose El Naschie has published his work in the journal of which he is the Editor in Chief. So what? This is completely common. The most important paper on chaos and turbulence written by David Ruelle, was referred by David Ruelle and published by David Ruelle in his own journal. And thank God for that; this enormously important paper would otherwise have been lost to science for ever. As David Ruelle in his popular book admitted, his paper was rejected by almost every well established journal in the world. And even if the papers were not refereed, there was nothing sinister about it. The name of the Author is clearly printed on the Journal as its Editor in Chief with all the editorial power of an Editor in Chief. Everything was transparent. How could anybody derive from this fact that he is free to borrow generously from these papers as much as he wants without giving the Author credit? The most important thing is that these papers are published. If you do not like them, you should not use them. If you use them you must refer to them. Anything else is very bad logic and I do not find the way Dr. Ambjorn, Dr. Loll and Dr. Jurkiewicz dealt with this problem convincing nor acceptable. They have never commented nor gave any explanation to anyone as if they were above the law, written or unwritten. I do not think this is something good and the diversion created by Dr. Baez makes things even far worse. Trying to involve Nature and push one of its journalists, Mr Schiermeier to write something about Chaos, Solitons & Fractals is probably the worse course of action possible. Why don't people learn from history. Watergate, Lewinskygate and so many other gates. It seems that the only thing man learns from history is that man does not learn from history.

I would like to come back to the connection between Mohamed El Naschie's work and the paper on causal sets published in Classical & Quantum Gravity and mentioned on this site. The Author of this paper is a Professor in Imperial College. Interestingly Dr. Renate Loll got her Ph.D. from Imperial College although she is German and is working in Holland. I wonder what this means for the work of Prof. El Naschie. It is completely based on partially ordered sets. Maybe I am becoming paranoid.

Everybody knows for whose account John Baez is working. He builds an army for slander made of Dr. Skoda the intimidator. He allied himself with Loll and her co-authors. It is all about money. It is all about illegal money. Everyone knows the relation between Scientific American and Nature. Nature is coming to the rescue of their sister magazine. Trying to capture a share of the market. Google is reporting the fabricated evidence of John Baez. What John Baez is doing is not bordering on criminality, it is criminal. He blocked his site and allows only his fellow intimidators and slanderers to write comments. We have Dodge City justice and all in the name of the main stream interest groups. Of course you are going to delete his comment, Mr. Lisi as you too have been drafted in. We have seen your comments in The n-Category Café hideaway. The truth will come out about all of you and justice will prevail. Go on with your slander and intimidation. You have all the rope in the world to hand yourselves.

The work of Mohamed El Naschie could be easily understood in terms of theories connected to quantum logic and quantum sets. Quantum sets was discussed in different forms by David Finkelstein from Georgia Tech. It is related to some pioneering work done in the early days of the Copenhagen Interpretation in Germany. To be more specific, El Naschies Cantor set theory is a computational version of the theory known as partially ordered sets or posets. This theory was developed in England and was revived recently using what is called Causal Set Theory. It is well known that the work of El Naschie is based on the deterministically chaotic sets. Loosely speaking, partially ordered set may be envisaged as a deterministically chaotic one and in a relatively recent work published in the proceedings of the American Institute of Physics, Mohamed El Naschie compared his work to that of G. tHoofts recent call for a revision of quantum mechanics as following: While tHooft is looking at the roots of deterministic quantum mechanics, El Naschie found that these roots are deterministically random classical mechanics.

It is not possible to understand new ideas unless one is open to new ideas. I am quite confident that a new quantum field theory based on discrete posets will be fully developed in the next few years. Many will ask themselves then, how could we have possibly misunderstood El Naschies work for numerology while anyone, with a minimum of goodwill, will recognize it immediately as computational quantum set theory.

D. Hume

The Case of John Baez, Renate Loll and John Ambjorn

Following Prof. Keyes comments, I read the site of John Baez. There is not a shred of a doubt in my mind that Renate Loll and her colleagues have enticed their publisher Dr. Baez to launch this vicious attack against Prof. Mohamed El Naschie. I cannot fathom that any respectable Professor in a respectable University such as UC Riverside could indulge in such character assassination. Has Dr. Baez introduced a new profession to science: scientific vigilantism and paid for scientific assassins. It is a black day for science and academia.

D. Hume

The case of John Baez n-Category Caf? concur with what has been written before and warn everybody from this shadowy caf?Fraud and forgery are the means. Comments are blocked for anyone who is not a member of the gang. Names and addresses are false and the allegations are too idiotic to have a trace of any truth in them. How could UC Riverside allow such garbage to be connected with their name?

R. Meyer

If John Baez thinks anybody is stupid enough to believe the trash he is writing then I am truly looking forward to see him in a cross examination in an American Court. John Baez must have lost his marbles if he ever had any. What is incredible however is that his name is listed as a visitor in Spinoza Institute, University of Utrecht, Holland. Where did I hear this address before?

S. Justice

With respect my learned friends, it is wholly untrue that Mohamed El Naschie publishes his papers exclusively in Chaos, Solitons & Fractals. Here are two samples of about 250 others. First, Superstrings, knots and noncommutative geometry in E-infinity space, published in Int. Journal of Theoretical Physics, Vol. 37, No. 12, 1998. The Editor-in-Chief is Prof. David Finkelstein from Georgia Tech University, himself a distinguished theoretical physicist. I know that the referee of this particular paper was connected to the Nobel prize. Second, Average exceptional Lie group hierarchy and high energy physics, published in Frontiers of Fundamental & Computational Physics. American Inst. of Physics 2008, AIP Conference Proceedings, 1018. Mohamed El Naschie presented his work and lectured in the presence of the following Nobel laureates in physics: Gerrardus 'tHooft, Douglas Osheroff, Ilya Prigogine, Anthony Leggett, Gerd Bennig. He was in countless conferences and has been honored by numerous universities and institutions all over the world. Even lacking all of that, what right does anyone have to slander and defame out of hatred, jealousy and god knows what else in such a despicable way as what I have witnessed on the modern menace of our age of so called scientific blogs.

The correct way to start to understand El Naschie's work is set theory and quantum probability. An excellent starting point is probably the work of Stanley P. Gudder from the University of Denver, Colorado. On page 75/76 of his classical book published by Academic Press in 1988 he introduces posets. This is an abbreviation for partially ordered sets. In May 1996 Gudder published an excellent paper edited by Prof. M.S. El Naschie. The paper was entitled Hyperfinite quantum random walks. Gudder, as befitting a great mathematical physicist of his stature, acknowledged the work of Prof. S. Hemion, an outstanding British mathematician working in Germany. To close the circuit Hemion, in a pioneering paper entitled A class of partially ordered sets acknowledged Mohamed El Naschie's work as an application of his theory in physics. Hemion cited the following paper of El Naschie Average symmetry, stability and ergodicity of multidimensional Cantor sets. This paper was published in the old version of the present day European Journal of Physics. This was the journal where Einstein published many of his papers and it was located in Italy and called N. Cimento. This particular paper is in No. 109, p. 149 (1994). Defamatory allegations are extremely ugly. In the scientific milieu it is rare and takes such vicious form only when someone has something to hide. I wish those who are tormented by envy and jealousy would thoroughly research the subject first before making such despicable allegations.

It is a shameless and blatant lie perpetuated by those who fear nothing more than the truth that Prof. Mohamed El Naschie publishes his papers exclusively in his Journal. You simply need to look into the International Journal of Theoretical Physics, vol. 37 no. 12 December 1998, pages 2935-2951. The paper in this Journal whose editor in chief is a highly respected professor of Georgia Tech., namely David Finkelstein is entitled: Superstrings, knots, and non-commutative geometry in E-Infinity space. The paper was received by the Journal on March the 21st of 1998. The address of Prof. El Naschie at this time was the Department of Applied Mathematics and Theoretical Physics in Cambridge, England. The paper was accepted at once as submitted by the editorial board which comprised names such as: Nobel Laureate in Physics, Steven Weinberg and Chen-Ning Yang in addition to Sir Roger Penrose, Sheldon Glashow and Yuval Neeman, Leonard Susskind of Stanford and a past teacher of Prof. Mohamed El Naschie, Carl .F. Von Weizsaecker . It is a profound paper with hardly any number theory involved. It is all set theory. Any person must ask himself why now this vicious campaign masterminded by John Baez of n-Category café blog and UC Riverside. Prof. El Naschie has been publishing his work for 17 years so again why now? The obvious answer is the present paper published in Scientific American by Renate Loll and her co-authors. The numerous comments on this site bear witness to the real motives than anything else which I could possibly say.

Sage

Why are all these people ganging against Mohamed El Naschie? Is it because of the name Mohamed? Barrack Obama was subjected to something similar because of his middle name Hussein. Are these powerful groups afraid that the Obama effect which took place on the political level could be repeated by El Naschie on the scientific level? I wonder.

Using set theory for a discrete space time makes a great deal of sense. I am intrigued by what previous commentators said about the connection between El Naschie theory and the work of Stanley Gudder and G Hemion. I think it is correct to describe the work on E-Infinity theory as computational posets. In this connection I just came across a brand new paper titled: Particle propagators on discrete spacetime- written by Steven Johnston and published in Classical and Quantum Gravity, 25 September 2008.

When you read this paper thoroughly, you realize that it is the same program as the work of El Naschie. I personally think that Coexter and Reflection Groups is a better mathematical foundation for the program of El Naschie. But the relation between Steven Johnston and the work of El Naschie is truly remarkable.

Some have been asking, although with nothing good in the back of their minds, what El Naschie was doing as a Ph.D. student. I found a remarkable book on Stability and Catastrophe by J.M.T. Thompson, University College, London and a fellow of the Royal Society. The book is called: Instabilities and Catastrophes in Science and Engineering and published in 1982 by John Wiley and Sons. In this book and on page 54, Sir J. M. T. Thompson writes: The buckling and post buckling of a strut on an elastic foundation with a free, un-pinned end has been discussed by El Naschie who has also elucidated the mechanics of ring buckling.

I have inquired further and found out that both Thompson and El Naschie were working in a famous stability research group founded and directed by Lord Henry Chilver who was the adviser of Margaret Thatcher on all research and higher education matters.

I have a hunch that it is not religion or racial discrimination which is causing many so-called respectable gentlemen to gang against Mohamed El Naschie. I think it has something to do with King Faisal Prize. It has something to do with the manipulation that takes place. Arabs are well known to fight against one another. They rather see a foreigner win than one of their own. It is a strange aberration of this once great nation. Somebody is capitalizing on this inglorious characteristic. I think I know that a man who answers to the name of Al Hindi is twisting things to the benefit of certain people whose names have been mentioned on this site many times.