no sane mind would consider (then still hypothetical) light particles to carry propellant (functionally energetic fuel and reaction mass) In mathematics one an

no sane mind would consider (then still hypothetical) light particles to carry propellant (functionally energetic fuel and reaction mass) In mathematics one and the same theorem can have multiple derivations or proofs. WHile some proofs may be shorter, or more elegant, or rely on more widely understood theorems, they are still equally valid. Relying on fewer axioms is desirable though. Physics is not practiced as pure mathematics. In physics there is always a tradeoff between simplicity and accuracy. I have regularly observed different people using the same assumptions and arriving at the same resulst call each others derivation "wrong" simply because they dont like or perhaps understand each others derivation. Often just simple differences like the order of the steps, or derivations that are identical up to trivially regrouped factors in the quantities used, or one derivation working in the time domain while the other is in the frequency domain etc... It is surprising how hard people can argue while factually in agreement. Returning to the simplicity and accuracy tradeoff. One might say there are islands where ideas quasicoherently match, where the accuracy over simplicity ratio peaks sufficiently. Without the intermediate islands no-one would be able to deduce a huge hop towards the truth. All the little islands along the way were important, even if they were flawed in hindsight. Does the article state the clergyman derived general relativity? Or merely predicted celestial objects so heavy that light could not escape? It is ironic that the distinction you make relies on special relativity, where frames of reference must be inertial, whereas merely considering gravitational forces requires the considerations of accelerating reference frames.