no equations doesn't mean no math. Equations generally do a pretty poor job in explaining things. I'd much rather read an article containing "because acceleration is inversely proportional to mass" than one containing "because F=ma"
That's interesting, I would much rather read "the black body specific intensity is given by B_lambda (T) = (2 h c^2 / lambda^5) / [exp(hc / (lambda * kT)) - 1], where lambda is the wavelength, T is the temperature, c is the speed of light, h is Planck's constant (energy divided by frequency for any particle), kT is the temperature in units of energy, and exp(x) = e^x, than "the black body specific intensity is given by twice Planck's constant times the speed of light squared over the wavelength to the fifth power, all over 1 less than e raised to the Planck's constant times C over the wavelength thermal energy power. There's a reason formulas are the language of mathematics and physics. They are concise, easy to parse, and unambiguous. Contrary to your example, it is easy to see scaling relations without having to add the words for what type of proportionality it is (again, there is a symbol for proportionality that lets you write a simple, easy to understand formula for it). Moreover, you can easily manipulate formulas to show something new. Not so with sentences.