Maths is more than just a language to be translated.
Maths provides answers to a vital part of the empirical side of science questioning.
It provides the quantitative perspective and without that perspective, it is not science.
For example, the very questions you ask Alex:
Quote:
|
Although I dont understand the math it would seem if such were so such a situation would defy logic as how could the HB impart only a fraction of its mass…
|
.. is an empirical question, requiring an empirical explanation. It only defies logic, because there is no logic, without the logic which underpins maths.
Quote:
|
AND notwithstanding everyone's call that I must know the math I can not fathom why the math can not be translated to describe the reality it seeks to describe. After all it is logic that the formulas that is the language of math.
|
The internal logic of maths quite often has significance within the maths domain, but has no physical significance (ie: no translation into English). I'm not saying this is the case with the HB mechanism, but how would you understand it, if there was no physical analogy for the maths logic underpinning the result ?
Also, maths can condense huge verbosity in verbal language, down to a succinct relationship described in text and meta-language. Frequently, this IS the description which answers the empirical questions. If it contains a meta-language concept, how could you ever understand what it is telling you ?
Eg: if I was to say that 'r' is the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the 2-sphere … what would that mean to you ?
Cheers