Home
Creators
Search Recent Random
Posts
Search DMs Popular Hash Lookup Tags Random
Importer
Import FAQ
Register Favorites Keys Review DMs Logout
Community
Telegram ThePornDude
Home Creators Posts Import Register Favorites Logout

Eric Weinstein: "Jeffrey Epstein has been mirroring me my entire life" (YouTube) (Patreon)

Published:
2026-07-04 23:14:36
Imported:
2026-07
Tags:

Content

Eric Weinstein is back on Rogan, first, to relitigate his debate with Sean Carroll and explain why his views on String Theory put his life in danger and, second, to note that nobody is talking about the real issue with Jeffrey Epstein, just how interested he was in Eric.

00:00 When Eric met Joe

02:00 Sean Carroll & The String Theory Mafia

09:30 Eric and Jeffrey Epstein

16:00 Epstein’s visit to Eric’s Office!

24:50 Narcissism explains it all

28:00 The Construct of Eric Weinstein

Files

Eric Weinstein: "Jeffrey Epstein has been mirroring me my entire life"

Eric Weinstein is back on Rogan, first, to relitigate his debate with Sean Carroll and explain why his views on String Theory put his life in danger and, second, to note that nobody is talking about the real issue with Jeffrey Epstein, just how interested he was in Eric. Support the Show If you enjoy the show and want to support us, you can find us on Patreon, where we post bonus episodes and extra content: ► Patreon: / decodingthegurus Find Us Elsewhere ► Twitter/X: / guruspod ► Podcast (all platforms): https://decoding-the-gurus.captivate.fm/ ► Reddit: / decodingthegurus 00:00 When Eric met Joe 02:00 Sean Carroll & The String Theory Mafia 09:30 Eric and Jeffrey Epstein 16:00 Epstein’s visit to Eric’s Office! 24:50 Narcissism explains it all

Comments

Rich F

Aaagh. "What I really do for a living, I'm not paid to do." Eric Weinstein, 2026 "Yeah I understand what you're saying." Joe Rogan, same conversation.

saudadiste

"Joe is like some...Barbarian King." 🤣😂

Hew Dog

This was such a fun clip, my own theory? I think Epstein’s entire blackmail network was to prevent Geometric Unity from gaining traction. Think about it… THINK

Michael McEvoy

So I asked ChatGPT about the controversy - and here is the result This is a good question, and it gets at an important distinction. If you’re referring to the recent debate between Sean Carroll and Eric Weinstein, Carroll did indeed ask, in effect, “Where’s the Lagrangian?” as part of his criticism of Geometric Unity. The confusing part is that the publicly available GU manuscript does contain a chapter explicitly titled “Lagrangians.” In the current draft, Chapter 9 introduces several proposed Lagrangians and action functionals. So why did Carroll say that? There are a few plausible interpretations: 1. He may have been speaking rhetorically rather than literally. In theoretical physics, asking “Where’s the Lagrangian?” is shorthand for asking: * What are the fundamental fields? * What are their interactions? * What are the symmetries? * Can I derive known physics from this in a standard way? In other words, he may have meant, “Where is the complete, usable Lagrangian that connects your theory to established physics?” rather than “There are literally no equations labeled ‘Lagrangian.’” 2. He may have judged the proposed Lagrangians to be insufficient. A physicist generally expects a candidate unified theory to provide a well-defined action from which one can derive the Standard Model and gravity, recover known limits, and make new predictions. Carroll’s broader criticism has been that GU does not yet make that connection in a form the community can verify. 3. It’s also possible Carroll simply misspoke. Since the manuscript undeniably has a section titled “Lagrangians,” some observers—including Weinstein’s supporters—have argued that Carroll’s wording was inaccurate. That specific criticism has been widely discussed after the debate. So, on the narrow factual question: * Does the publicly available GU manuscript contain Lagrangians? Yes. It literally contains a chapter devoted to them. * Does that mean Carroll’s broader scientific criticism is necessarily wrong? No. His substantive point appears to be that GU has not yet provided a complete, compelling, and independently verifiable Lagrangian formulation that reproduces established physics in the way modern field theories are expected to. Those are two different claims, and it’s important not to conflate them. Given your interest in general relativity and Lagrangian mechanics, we could also look at what a successful unification Lagrangian is expected to contain (gauge fields, fermions, symmetry groups, coupling constants, spontaneous symmetry breaking, etc.) and then compare that checklist directly against Weinstein’s manuscript. That comparison gets to the heart of why GU remains controversial.

Michael McEvoy

With Eric’s powerful connections - it should be relatively ( pun intended) easy to publish, promulgate and support his work . And Eric is downright weird regarding Epstein . If I was Joe Rogan , I would be asking over and over again - have you talked it over with Elon?