@ Exapno
I see what you’re saying, but isn’t building a huge supercollider miles in diameter under the earth then slamming protons into each other the definition of experimentation? I get that it took a ton of math and engineering to set it up… but experimentation is the act of toying with nature in a controlled way to see if it does what you predict, no?
Also, even though Einstein followed his ideas through with equations, his thought experiments came first. You can argue that that’s not words, but I don’t think it counts as pure math either. Just by thinking about nature alone, look what he devised in the end.
No, by applying his thoughts to equations he let the equations tell him what his thoughts could not, and was very surprised at some of the results. Not to mention that he wasn’t good enough at the actual math part to get the answers he sought until better mathematicians showed him things like the tensor calculus.
Same with experimentation. What will the results of the LHC look like? Printouts. The nature of the inputs doesn’t matter, since all outputs are identical.
It is trivial to say that humans must deal with the world through words and actions. But the outcome can only be written with math. Your attempts to give it a secondary place have no historical backing. Without the math, theory and experimentation both, all the words and thoughts produce nothing but fuzziness. That’s not physics. Physics always surprises us, no matter the thought that goes in ahead of time.
Mathematics is the deduction of theorems within a formal system. Experimentation is the observation of the universe. Experimentation is not mathematics, but it can use math.
Since Einstein’s (and every other physicist’s) theories become not-comprehensive where black holes are concerned, does that suggest that there are still yet deeper and as-yet-unknown premises on which a more comprehensive physics system can be based? There seem to exist phenomena in which there is no ‘vacuum’, where distance/space may not apply/exist, and where the speed of light becomes overwhelmed by the acceleration of gravity. Does this suggest something we can theorize about ‘Einstein-style’- and later bring in expert mathematicians to perform the exposition? Like… physics takes ‘distance’ to be part of every equation, yet physically something exists which may literally be a point, so what does that mean? Word salad?
Or is: (‘physics’ is inapplicable absent ‘distance’) plus (black holes are the key to understanding gravity) the source confusion of the op and everyone else? You know, there are no descriptors available, and so understanding cannot proceed further, something like that.
And- words vs. math: I thought they were the same thing, only math ‘words’ have an exactly determinable referent, and casual words don’t. Isn’t that right?
I don’t have a problem with the math part at all. I understand it’s impossible to do physics without it. But you said math and experimentation were the same thing, and I beg to differ. Are they dependent on each other? Of course, but they’re still two different things.
For what it’s worth, I was going more for “clarification” than “nitpick”. 
Re: OP; gravity as go of space in verse flow of water toward and over Niagara Falls.
As depicted, the Equivalent state and Relative vector and dimension of Niagara Black Hole Mass Falls is Grossly Inaccurate.
Velocity in verse Viscosity is off by Spacetime Constant.
Place an electromagnetic barrier out from across lip of Niagara Falls to repel wayward matter.solid.boat.
mass.energy.matter.earth.us.space.time
With all due respect, “mass sucks” is a much better fit.
Consider poor rubber ducky lost down drainhole in verse fluent vortex.
By event and horizon, spin in verse vortex by black drainhole mass exceeds even speed by ducky waves.
Superimpose image hurricane in verse galaxy.
Mark lines iso warp and bar.
I do not believe in the dark force of bar.
I do not believe in the dark force or warp.
Does black drainhole mass lead to a theory of everything?
Are pioneer and voyager spacecraft pressured by cosmic headwind?
Of course that is just the tale they tell simply in verse least of all me.
There is no dark warp.
There is only force as fluent pressure differential in verse acceleration.
There is only force as gravity in verse levity.
There is only force as acceleration in verse entropy and everything.
ItS
Peace
rwjefferson
Please forgive any poetry.
Not going to happen:
First, writing gibberish in short lines is not “poetry.”
Second, you were asked to present clarifications in prose.
Most importantly, you were specifically asked for clarification, not free-associating words, with a specification that violating that request would be the trigger to get this nonsense closed.
Therefore. . .
[ Modding ]