These condemnations weren't really enforced, for the good reason they weren't enforceable, especially the 1210's and 1270's condemnations : there's not even a trace that it hindered lectures, debates or teaching of Aristotelian physics in Paris (and even less elsewhere).
The bishops were basically pulling strawmen with all they could, not unlike conservative politicians would misrepresent new schools or practices, claiming to ban it forever to no effect, because nobody is doing what they claim and that almost nobody cares.
1277's condemnations were a bit more serious, because they were pulled from Rome and, this time, actually naming books (while not individuals) .and, maybe most of all, was backed by a significant part of the university that began to criticize Aristotle
Note that at this point, the problem was about strict Aristoelian physics "infrangements" on theology. (such as God not being able to create void) and that (at least for Tempier) a new Physic should be searched for and learned, which eventually had the effect of labelling Aristotle as imperfect (if not mistaken) and then trying to correct or bypassing it which had interesting consequences outside theology alone, and that went trough actual medieval discoveries in physics or a semi-skeptic school arising from it.
Long story short, you'd need to make 1210's condemnations something actually enforceable to have a modicum of chance having lasting consequences. And giving that it was essentially about
Amaurician heresy he fought and feared Aristotle's teaching will strengthen, rather hristian's theology... I'll say that either way Medieval science is going to be fine, altough it could either know some earlier experimental drive or having some "crisis of faith" and err a bit more longer. Assuming 1210's condamnations would have any effect.