Comment: It does if the model we are

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: Math is not observation (see in situ)

It does if the model we are

It does if the model we are testing with mathematics is correct. If not, it will lead to ever increasing levels of insanity.

Example: A century ago, it was agreed that gravity was the dominate force in the universe. Mathematics have been used to try to explain gravitational machinations throughout the universe. Every day, and since the beginning of this pursuit, new and inexplicable things arise which mathematicians "solve" by inventing new and strange "theories" which arise via their mathematical formula.

Now we have impossible and ridiculous concepts like black holes, dark matter, neutron stars, super-dense matter & on and on. None of these things are observable, can be tested, or have any resemblance to reality. Some of them, such as super-dense matter, outright contradict known laws of physics. This is what we get for replacing observation and experimentation with math.

In order for mathematics to be of any benefit at all to science, one has to start with a model that is correct. If you're applying mathematics "before" you've actually observed what it is you're trying to learn about, you're putting the cart before the horse and you're going to wind up entertaining the same gibberish as modern cosmology does. In the future, people will be making fun of us much as we do to those who believed in stupid things a few hundred years ago.

The universe is electrically based. Here's a very interesting video that might get you interested: