Forum

Well, Feynman, I hope he holds some weight in your eyes?

Of course, he does. But you are distorting the meaning of his sayings along with A. Smirnov. If he thought so in a negative sense, he wouldn't have given lectures on this pseudo-science. But these lectures exist, they are recorded, and they represent excellent literature for studying physics, presented in an amazingly simple language.
And the meaning of the saying is obviously that physics, as is well known, is a science of errors. And it is a pseudo-science from the point of view that it constantly builds models that only describe real situations with a certain, pre-calculated accuracy, and not precisely.

Well, are you sure that your model 100% reflects the situation with the Boeing?
By studying an ant's leg, you extrapolate the experience gained to all other legs of that ant, to all other ants, to the entire anthill, to the entire forest, to all legs of other living creatures, to the entire planet, the universe, etc.

Of course, why not? Induction. Any aircraft flying relatively slowly (clearly slower than the speed of sound) have approximately the same structure; in the first approximation, this is almost imperceptible. The differences become apparent in the first approximation when you put the model in an aerodynamic tunnel.

Electromagnetic radiation spectra. Classical theory (see Rayleigh-Jeans law) did not provide a satisfactory description of the spectra of radiation of an absolutely black body (see Ultraviolet catastrophe) and significantly diverged from experimentally observed ones. Linear spectra of emission and absorption of light by gaseous substances also did not find an explanation within the framework of classical physics.
You didn't say exactly that. But you are very smoothly leading to the fact that in the theory of physics, there are very few contradictions with practice, and that they are not so significant.

There are certain models for certain life situations that correspond to these situations with a certain accuracy. This accuracy is enough to develop Boeings and pots for cooking pasta. That's what I want to say.

The phenomenon of radioactivity, discovered in 1896 by A. Becquerel, and studied at the end of the 19th century by Marie and Pierre Curie, testified to the fact that atoms contain a huge (compared to their size and mass) energy, the origin of which could not be explained within the framework of classical physics.

You cited a quote, but you didn't even bother to find out what it means. Classical physics = not quantum physics, actually ;)

The red edge of the external photoelectric effect.

Likewise. What do you think Einstein was striving for?

But these classical theories are still taught in schools and universities.

To the extent that they are applicable. Quantum physics is also taught in schools, the very one with which Albert explained the photoelectric effect. Ariputra, where were you in physics class? And in Russian class?

How could such a strictly regular, harmonious structure as the universe have arisen as a result of an explosion? An explosion destroys, not creates.
This is roughly the same as assuming that an airplane can be formed as a result of an explosion of an aircraft factory.

I can only note that the Big Bang hypothesis does not contradict creationism, without going into the details of the hypothesis itself, which, in principle, may turn out to be incorrect, given how dynamic modern astrophysics is.