Corpus evidence — top 10 passages

Most-relevant passages from the entire indexed corpus (67,286 paragraph chunks across YouTube transcripts, PubMed, arXiv, archive.org, Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, OpenAlex, and more) ranked by semantic similarity (bge-small-en-v1.5).

1. 01 · yt0.842

   So I mean I'm fond of taking that line of discussion too but I think of it more as a postdiction rather than a prediction for the very reason that you mentioned. We've known about gravity. Isaac Newton wrote down a mathematical understanding of gravity. But if you imagine a counterfactual universe for instance a universe in which there was no Einstein and we did not have Einstein's general theory of relativity and yet somehow people came upon string theory and they began to study the mathematics of string theory within the math of string theory a clever string theorist would extract the genera…

   yt/o9z5il_FQUw-string-theory-multiverse-and-divine-design-brian-greene/transcript.txt

2. 02 · yt0.827

   So Einstein comes along and says, "Well, okay, can I make a version of Newton's theory of gravity that is compatible with my new theory of special relativity?" And after trying, he said, "No, I can't." You have to do something much more dramatic. And what he realized is that gravity is a special force of nature. You know, Maxwell talks about electricity and magnetism. If I wanna know what the electric field is at one point in space, it's very easy to do. I put a positively charged particle, a negatively charged particle, they get pushed in opposite directions by the electric field. But Einstei…

   yt/_TBNJyztai0-sean-carroll-explains-the-biggest-ideas-in-the-universe-full/transcript.txt

3. 03 · yt0.827

   The world or nature behaves as though these fictions were true until it doesn’t And then we replace the convenient fictions with other ones. For instance, Newton proposed the convenient fiction that there is an invisible force called gravity, pulling celestial bodies to one another invisibly and at a distance, and instantly. And it took the French about half a century to stop laughing of this mystical idea of these invisible forces pulling things towards one another. but we know how that ended. And yet, in the early 20th century, Einstein showed that there is no such force. There is no such in…

   yt/DyzHYnOqIoU-10k-subscribers-a-q-a-with-bernardo-kastrup/transcript.txt

4. 04 · _intake0.826

   > Okay. So you can say, do you know an example for that? No force. And you would say, well, at least where we live on earth, the first axiom is out of work, right? It's unemployed because there's always the gravitational force. It's just there. It's just there. So what do you mean a particle under no, under the influence of no force? If you ever say no gravity, also Newtonian theory is the curvature of Newtonian spacetime, then it would mean,

   _intake/claims-allbranch/curated-low/relativity/005-okay.md

5. 05 · yt0.825

   I'm going to give you a tiny little bit of evidence that this claim is actually true. The first bit of evidence is mostly rhetorical because you see a picture like this, it doesn't look very impressive. You're like, I could have drawn that. My kid could have drawn that. It's just a cartoon. I'm not going to believe your physical theory unless you show me the equations behind it. Well, here you are. This is the equation. This is what Nobel laurate Frank Wilch has dubbed the core theory of modern physics. It consists of two parts. It is general relativity, Albert Einstein's theory of gravity, an…

   yt/rqezWO5Yba8-sean-carrol-the-big-picture-on-the-origins-of-life-meaning-a/transcript.txt

6. 06 · _intake0.821

   Gravity is said to be “different” from the electromagnetic force because gravity has a polarity that is always positive. In other words, *for gravitational forces, things with masses always seem attractive and add to one another.* What could nature be hiding that might have a negative polarity that could move things apart? **Might a magnetic monopole be the opposite of gravity?** To many, this might seem foolish but we need to explore this further because it may explain a lot of what we don’t know about magnetism and life.

   _intake/kruse-blog-corpus/articles/monopoles-make-time.md

7. 07 · yt0.819

   How do we know that this isn't just pure mathematics? And that would take us into a wonderful conversation along the lines of the material that we just discussed. So yeah, I think he would warm to these ideas pretty quickly. Do you think we're sort of in the realm of philosophy here? One of the criticisms that I see of string theory as somebody who doesn't understand the first thing about it is that because of this lack of experimental data, you can say that in principle it could be tested. But there are all kinds of philosophical theories that in principle we could test. Ideas about personal …

   yt/o9z5il_FQUw-string-theory-multiverse-and-divine-design-brian-greene/transcript.txt

8. 08 · yt0.812

   And the claim is that Einstein's general theory of relativity, when appropriately combined with quantum mechanics, will do that for you. Which is the other way. It's gravitizing quantum mechanics rather than quantizing gravity. So is it true that you wouldn't have consciousness in Minkowski space? I mean, would it be impossible without gravitational force? I mean, obviously, you'd have matter, you'd have a brain, you'd have some gravitating but is it is it impossible then to have consciousness in a in a region that's either perfectly flat, has no matter, or is otherwise free from perturbations…

   yt/OoDi856wLPM-sir-roger-penrose-stuart-hameroff-collapsing-a-theory-of-qua/transcript.txt

9. 09 · yt0.810

   And the problem is that even though quantum mechanics works incredibly well in the micro domain and general relativity works incredibly well in the macro domain, whenever you try to put the two mathematical theories together, it breaks down. When you do any calculation that blends the math of quantum mechanics and the math of general relativity, you get one single answer. And that answer is infinity. And infinity might sound well that's kind of you know cool and poetic sounding but it's nonsensical in the context of physics. There's no quantity that you can measure that's ever infinity. So inf…

   yt/o9z5il_FQUw-string-theory-multiverse-and-divine-design-brian-greene/transcript.txt

10. 10 · yt0.806

    It's just the model. The point is, we are prepared for something that  hasn't happened yet, right? If somebody sees   matter that cannot have due to their behavior  a Lorentzian background but you would then,   phenomenologists would pretty quickly figure out  what may be the simplest background that could do   that, then the question comes up, but what's the  action for that background? It can't be Einstein,   right? Einstein is for a Lorentzian metric  or a metric in general. But then you would   try to solve our equa…

    yt/Bnh-UNrxYZg-frederic-schuller-the-physicist-who-derived-gravity-from-ele/transcript.txt