Originally Posted by
xtifr
Well, of course. It's important to dismiss something you don't understand if you're afraid it might contradict your elaborately constructed mountains of nonsense.
Less inconsistent, less illogical, and less prone to ambiguity. Otherwise, yes, it has all the elements of language. Just ask Turing.
Still, when your maths are limited to about what one might expect of a reasonably competent high-school student, this may not be obvious. Farsight may simply fail to understand just how expressive mathematics can be. But I think it's more likely that he insists on trying to interpret everything through natural language simply as a defense mechanism. "I don't understand it, therefore it's wrong." Unfortunately for him, easy comprehensibility does not seem to be a requirement for natural law.
F = ma is an easily understood and is an intuitively satisfying mathematical expression. Even Δt' = Δtγ is quite intuitive once one gets the drift of SR. High school algebra is more than adequate to handle these two important concepts and one could use ordinary language to describe them. But when confronted with the Higgs paper discussed at length in this thread, one must have studied quantum field theory, understand Lagrangian densities, gauge transformations and much more in some detail. That's when words, analogies, and pretty pictures fail the physics pretender, the evidence of which has been amply demonstrated here.