>>14389497>No, that would be engineering.semantics like that is just admitting you're wrong
>the physics of aerodynamics was not well understood,wright bros understood it better than anyone, they built their own wind tunnel and used it to gather better experimental data than had previously been compiled, they used that data to theorize the final design for their first powered flying machine, which flew on the first attempt and required no reengineering. in doing so they also developed large parts of the mathematical framework which governs aircraft design, they had studied the topic extensively on a scientific basis before engaging in any experiments. so brushing that off as just engineering is only taking advantage of your ignorance of the brothers' accomplishments.
>relativity literally turned everything on its head.it didn't, except for the IFLS crowd. very little practical application, didn't change much, sr might've been a bit of help in understanding how make radar work accurately. gr is just a fancy zero sum game, it was already proven wrong twice, each time they just threw on an epicycle to make the zero sum game work again. nondisprovable theories are not science, the scientific method excludes them. the correctness of gr hinges on the existance of phantom dark matter, which, like god, cannot be proven to not exist, you just have to have faith in einstein.
