Hi, Intelligent Design.
Like myself, you definitely know we are living in a materialistic world. A type or category 3 civilization really is Darth Vader and his command ship (or the Death Star, for that matter).
No place or room for angels, beliefs, mythology and mysteries in all of this.
Such things belongs to our own world of thinking.
We are trying to understand the Universe as it is and appears to us by means of observation and analysis. Mathematics is thought to be the fundamental building mechanism and foundation for this to be working out and readily understood.
While we are trying to understand the workings of the Universe - are we also trying to find flaws in the way it is supposed to be working? In order to try to understand such flaws, in some instances we think of the existence of the Universe as being a random event (not having been created by means of divine creation, but rather as a result of randomness and coincidence). Anyway such principles are readily explained by means of mathematics.
Some people are reluctant to believe or think that the laws of nature are governed by mathematical or physical laws because of their reluctance at believing in a divine creator or some other divine creation being behind the creation and origin of the Universe and the ultimate forces which may be the source and origin of its existence.
The creation we are part of has created matter by means of the existence of particles. The movement of particles gives room for the creation of energy.
Meaning that particles in motion constitutes such energy. The way particles are moving are subjected to physical laws. These laws are based on a general assumption that the Universe is three-dimensional and that particles can not move faster through space than the speed of light (c) which is assumed to be a constant.
Which means that the laws which are related to energy are synonymous with the laws that are given or readily accepted for particles by means of their mass or matter or at least their behaviour as such.
Particles are having weight because of both their intrinsic density as well as their individual atoms are thought of as having even more esoteric sub-atomic particles which are composing or making them up.
Thinking of the Universe as being the result of a creation, possibly divine - and you are ready to assume that the laws that are governing it are fundamental in nature.
Mathematical laws are being used to explain measurements within the physics world. Time and gravity are two of the elements which are the most fundamental, but still the hardest ones to explain and understand.
You may have been seeing those formulas (or to be more precise - equations) possibly been written up on cardboards in the physics labs.
Are these equations supposed to be dealing with variables - or are they rather dealing with constants instead?
Many physicists assume that the number of factors underlying the principles of physics becomes so large that they give rise to principles of randomness, chaos and uncertainty. When not excluding a possible divine factor behind the creation of the Universe - is it more easy to accept such a factor by means of the "sum of the results" rather than all the factors which are constituting such a result and possibly change this "sum of results" as a "result"?
In the same way as the understanding of the laws of electromagnetism is trying to explain one aspect of the GUI (or Grand Unified Theory), the science between the weak nuclear forces does it another way, also strong nuclear forces does this yet another way and the ultimate science behind gravity and time are yet to go when it comes to trying to accomplish this aspect or subject. We have not mentioned time yet, because there are currently no defined or known laws for the notion or presence of time as we know it.
One cosmological model is supposed to be better than another and thereby replacing what is already being generally known or accepted for the same.
Newton's laws of gravity replaced everything that was generally believed to be true earlier when it comes to the subect of theoretical physics. Albert Einstein introduced relativity into Newton's laws by means of the special and general theory of relativity. Today even Einstein's models are not thought to be satisfactorily explained for every aspect of the understanding of nature and is now being superseded by Quantum Theory instead.
It may be assumed that a theory is a substitute for a given law. It appears or emerges in advance - before everything is fully known or understood about it in every detail.
Our three-dimensional universe has gravity and time as options when it comes to its workings. Albert Einstein's famous equation E=mc2 tries to explain the notion of time (or what else which may rather be present).
A well-written book in my own language (in black and white only, the only thing missing is color) about astronomy gives an introduction to Newton's three laws of gravity. The third of these laws is quite complex.
These laws are not giving any explanation for the subject of time. Where are the laws for time as given or derived by Albert Einstein?
Clocks are a way of measuring time. We assume that time may be going either forwards (most logical) or maybe even backwards.
As stated by the laws of Albert Einstein, the speed of time is relevant to an observer from his point of view only (which may be either stationary or at the speed of light - or close to the speed of light). An observer traveling though space at close to the speed of light without any external reference points will not notice any special. However there would only be family graves to visit when returning back from such a travel through space.
Time is synonymous with the expansion (or inflation) of the Universe from a singularity. A singularity completely removes the notion of time. In such a singularity gravity is infinite.
Gravity is defined by means of mathematical laws. These laws include constants.
Einstein's law E=mc2 however does not assume that the values for E, m and c are constant when it comes to numerical values, only that the relation between these elements and factors may be regarded as being constants.
For laws to be fundamental, there is necessary to accept a creation behind these laws. Without a Universe, no laws - and vice versa.
Time may be interpreted or understood as being the fourth dimension. Gravity is the way this four-dimensional Universe is working. Assume a straight line between two places in space. Bend or pull the end-points of this line into an arc and the direct distance of the same points in space becomes much smaller.
If you do this enough many times, you may end up with a line which is vertical rather than horizontal. The distance between the two places in space has been reduced to a "point" (or "singularity").
Time is also a way of measuring distance. Regardless of distance, time is almost always present, which means that time is a factor when it comes to all the three dimensions (X, Y, Z). The presence of no time also means that X, Y and Z is no more present and we are once more back at the singularity.
But in the end there may still be the assumption around that the Universe has been created out of nothing and that there never has been a divine creator behind its origin and existence.
Where is religious belief in all of this? Where does it belong and has it any place at all when it comes to the subject of science?