Editing UAP (section)

=== 2021 ===

{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231788667113474
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Enough! Let’s get back to UFOs and space opera so we don’t have to worry about China & Iran making a breakthrough on a white board in some lab we can’t see.

[[Morals|Moral]]: if you take UFOs seriously but not the risk of new physics, you aren’t thinking clearly. 

Just think about it. 🙏
|media1=ERW-X-post-1385231788667113474-EzlU-H5VUAcjajt.jpg
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231778135248901
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=At this point, the story I am tracking isn’t “Little Green Men”. It is “Officials inexplicably change course on UFO narrative”.

Also, the story about “Technology never before seen.” Would make more sense with “Technology” replaced by “Physics”.
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=eigenbros-profile-PNxXBojm.png
|nameurl=https://x.com/eigenbros/status/1385203376284082180
|name=Eigenbros
|usernameurl=https://x.com/eigenbros
|username=eigenbros
|content=High level government officials have given [[UAP|UAPs]] credibility, but it's still pretty hard for an outsider to analyze the evidence objectively. It's all video footage and testimony. We need much stronger evidence to form any real opinion on UFOs being extraterrestrial or not.
|timestamp=12:06 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231779724861447
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The US/Europe seriously diverted attention from doing real theoretical physics almost 40 years ago in 1984 to explore physics inspired mathematics. Did China/Iran/Russia/Israel? I don’t know.

But I can tell you this: no one in government is appropriately focused on new physics.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231780446277636
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Imagine in 1900 some “crank” told you about thermonuclear weapons. Would you listen or laugh? Well, they’d be only 5 decades away with no aliens necessary. And powered flight hadn’t happened yet!

That’s how powerful a “new physics” advantage is. We’re behaving like lunatics.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231781826158593
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Any time ANYONE at least 1/2-way viable says something weird or kooky or interesting (Wolfram, Lisi, etc.) the cost of a Department of Energy 1hr phone call is negligible. Almost no one with that background says anything like this. Maybe less than 1 such PhD “lunatic” per year.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231782497296384
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Do I think Wolfram, Lisi, Kaku, Smolin, Klee Irwin, Sarfatti, Woit/Penrose etc are right or on the doorstep of new physics? No! But It’s also totally irrelevant to the security risk.

It wouldn’t matter to me at all.  I would check in with all of them: the cost is zero. The risk?
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231783210328071
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=The thing I like least about [[Theory of Geometric Unity|Geometric Unity]] is not being able to know what it would unlock if true, any more than Einstein and Bohr understood Lise Meitner, Stan Ulam &amp; Edward Teller’s weaponization of New Physics.

We are talking about UFOs while not worrying about New Physics.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231783940169734
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Think about the g-2 muon anomaly. Have you heard as much about that suggesting the possibility of New Physics from high precision (rather than high energy) as you have about the TicTac UAP?

Similarly, how often do you hear about [[UAP|UAP technology]] rather than physics issues. Right??
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231784594444288
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=I have no idea what to make of the change in the [[UAP|UAP narrative]]. What I can tell you with certainty is that for such an ENORMOUS change in the narrative there is no sane explanation for the DOE not to be talking new physics risks and taking every one of the few claims seriously.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1385231785282260993
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=As we saw over &amp; over in the 20th century, any small change in physics can change everything almost overnight. From A-Bombs to Semiconductors.

The handful of PhD level claims are of negligible cost to investigate &amp; dismiss compared to a single fighter jet. 

DOE lost the plot.
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}
|timestamp=1:59 PM · Apr 22, 2021
}}


{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409321471311110153
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=<nowiki>*exact</nowiki>
|thread=
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409319201043480579
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=Name a single species on earth so insignificant that biologists do not bother to include it on the phylogenetic tree or consider it interesting?

Neil:Pardon me for asking, but isn’t *this* an egocentric anti-curiosity position elevating radical obligate “debunking” over science?
|quote=
{{Tweet
|image=neiltyson-profile.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/neiltyson/status/1409308565127450631
|name=Neil deGrasse Tyson
|usernameurl=https://x.com/neiltyson
|username=neiltyson
|content=How egocentric of us to think that Space Aliens, who have mastered interstellar travel across the Galaxy, would give a shit about humans on Earth.
|media1=neiltyson-X-post-1409308565127450631-E47aRRlWEAEVQ4H.png
|timestamp=12:32 AM · Jun 28, 2021
}}
|timestamp=1:14 AM · Jun 28, 2021
}}
{{Tweet
|image=Eric profile picture.jpg
|nameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein/status/1409320514607226881
|name=Eric Weinstein
|usernameurl=https://x.com/EricRWeinstein
|username=EricRWeinstein
|content=This isn’t meant as a dig. I am trying to use your same exactly choice of normative framing that you used to dismiss my fellow inquiring minds in the wake of the [[UAP]] report. Happy to remove it if we can get rid of the invective. Thanks.
|timestamp=1:19 AM · Jun 28, 2021
}}
|timestamp=1:23 AM · Jun 28, 2021
}}