Since the universe is unknowable to the individual, believing is an integral part of consciousness. This applies to scientific consciousness in full.
But scientific belief should not contradict physics.
Belief in aliens is no different from religion: it is just as unscientific, because it contradicts the special theory of relativity.
No movement in the space of the universe can occur faster than the speed of light. This means that neither interstellar travel nor inter-civilization contacts are possible.
Do not hope that there will be discoveries in physics in the future that will break the ban imposed by special relativity. There are no wormholes. Warp drive is not possible. Quantum teleportation is limited to the speed of light.
Any movement in the space of the universe with a speed exceeding the speed of light, that is, overtaking the maximum speed of information propagation, would violate causality.
Violations of causality are impossible: everything that happens is always grounded by its prehistory.
A warp flying saucer would break causation. Like any religious, mystical and mythical miracle. This is why belief in aliens is no different from religion. Strictly physical, the arrival of aliens would be as miraculous as the descent of a god.
If you observe something that is not yet amenable to explanation, look for local, physically grounded reasons for this phenomenon that do not violate causality.
Or, if you like, believe in miracles. But, if possible, try not to call your religion a science.
Colleague expresses the opinion that increasing entropy will eventually eliminate everything in the universe.
1 ᐅ
This is a very interesting opinion indeed.
And first of all, it is interesting in attitude to this problem in modern physics. Modern physics is little shy about this topic.
Because it is very inconvenient not to have a clear answer to a such simple question.
2 ᐅ
This question sounds like this: "Will the heat death of the universe occur: yes or no?"
If you ask physicist, he will do everything not to answer. He will discourse a lot, deeply explain, refer to the history and latest research, but you shouldn't expect neither yes nor no.
3 ᐅ
Some (few) people are wondering: why is Elon Musk @elonmusk going to send a million people to Mars in the next 40 years, and why is preparing for this with such energy, which (if to leave aside the charm of achievements of this very extraordinary person) is more like a rush?
1>
@elonmusk We visited the Moon half a century ago and since then have done quite well without far space flights. Is it possible that such a waste of funds and efforts is simply explained by the fact that one enthusiast was carried away by the idea of giving humanity a multi-planetary?
2>
A fleet of 1000 #Starship, 3 launches per day, difficulties and suffering in flight and in life in the colony, losses ... Expenses with which even the Sahara or Antarctica can turn into a paradise for the same people. And all this for what? Just out of principle, let it be?
3>
Why does quantum gravity (and, accordingly, graviton) not exist, and all theories professing this idea are fictitious? Because the nature of the gravitational interaction, with all the kinship with the other three (quantized), is still somewhat different.
1/39
Like everything in the information universe, fundamental interactions are the derivatives of the metric of the universe. It is it that determines their number - four - and the basic features of each of them.
2/39
The metric of the universe is determined by the third level of combinations of the beings of the universe (more on this here:
1/19 The compression/static/expansion trilemma is meaningless. It comes from the naive worldly idea of the universe as a certain volume of matter existing in space and time. This idea (the same turtle and three whales) brought cosmology even to such funny absurdity:
2/19 To understand what the universe is, first need to clear yourself of the jumble of absurdities that the BBT has turned cosmology into. Take any theory, and if it has in anamnesis the Doppler interpretation of redshift - forget it, this theory is wrong.
3/19 When you free yourself from childhood mistakes, you will have the opportunity to return to the forgotten source: the content of the concept "universe". The universe is everything. Everything that exists is the inner concepts of it. There are no concepts external to it.
1. Why does the universe exists as we observe it, that is, progressing from simple states to more and more complex ones?
This thread complements the answer to the question about the cause of the universe existing given in the earlier thread.
2. The idea for this new thread came in a dream. The brain, accustomed to everyday perception of reality, is not satisfied with a strictly formal answer, and, without asking the owner's opinion, seeks more worldly arguments for the same conceptual basis.
3. The conceptual basis is defined in another earlier thread related to the first: the universe is only information and nothing else.
This thread answers the Ultimate Question of Life, the Universe, and Everything. And this is not 42.
2. If we are talking about the universe, then the only question that makes sense is: why does the universe exist. All other questions (i.e. how it exists) are consequences of it. If your cosmology does not answer this question, it is not cosmology.
3. The Big Bang Theory does not answer the question of why the universe exists. Therefore, neither it nor the countless daughter theories built on it are cosmology. They are fundamentally naught, even when consistent with observations.