Engineering IS physics - applied real world materials based physics. Euler's work is a direct derivative of Newton's work.
No, physics is physics.
Engineering is engineering.
Math is math.
The fact that physics uses math doesn't make it mathematics.
Physics is mathematics, where it uses mathematics, AS IT IS UNDERSTOOD TO DESCRIBE THE REAL WORLD as validated by empirical, falsifiable, reproducible experiment.
Just doing math is not physics. You actually need to do the experiments too.
Similarly just knowing the basic laws of physics is not the same as building a building.
When you build a building you use equations generated by physics to KNOWN APPLICATIONS IN KNOWN SETTINGS. This is completely different from physics, which intrinsically appeals to FAILED ATTEMPTS AT EMPIRIC FALSIFICATION, not RATIONAL VALIDATION.
This really does go to the very heart of the difference between the two disciplines.
Raw, direct observation, unfiltered by preconceptions.
This is problematic as an approach because in reality there is no such thing.
You cannot SEE, your eyes interpret the input of photons given off by a computer screen and your brain interprets this as vision. This may seem like a sophist's dilemma to you but I can assure you it will torpedo every attempt you make to solve the problem using "direct unfiltered observation".
You DO make assumptions about things you cannot see at every step along the way of your observation driven investigation. You either assume that what you are seeing is happening as the result of gravity alone or is being helped along by explosives.
Try as you might you cannot NOT do this. Just saying that you don't make assumptions is not sufficient.You DO make assumptions because you HAVE TO make assumptions to do even basic thought processes.
What you, as a scientist need to do is not claim access to ultimate unadorned truth through the quasi-magical medium of your eyes. You need to
in a manner that we can all evaluate explicitly exactly how you are reaching the conclusions you reach. It may seem to you that you are admitting failure when in fact you are just applying the bare minimum honesty in the face of necessarily incomplete knowledge.
If you don't state your assumptions the reader is forced to assume that you have made assumptions which support your case and didn't tell me about it.
If I may be so bold as to say that it is not only okay to make assumptions, but that you are required to do so, because explicitly making assumptions means that you are fully aware of what they are. Knowing which assumptions you make and stating them is not a negotiable part of the process.