Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

Why do you think the Michaelson-Morley experiment proved that the Earth is stationary? I’d like to see the reasoning. Same thing with the Foucault pendulum.

the scientific community was expecting a positive result -- not a null result via the Michelson/Morley test -

the Foucault pendulum requires periodical adjusting --- like any/every other pendulum on earth !!!

While it is a gross over-simplification to say what "the scientific community" was expecting, the story of the reaction to the result of the Michelson-Morley experiment 139 years ago shows the difference between scientists and flaky conspiracy theorists.

The result was at odds with the approximate model of space and time that had been accepted as true since ancient times - 3 dimensional Euclidean space and separate 1 dimensional time. And the problem with the result was acknowledged for the next 18 years, at which time Einstein published his key paper on special relativity, which completely explained the result and made a vast array of predictions for other experiments.

You and similar delusionists do not react to evidence in this way for a combination of reasons including lack of competence, poor reasoning skills and psychological problems.

The Foucault pendulum, you simply don't understand.

the Michelson/Morley test has been performed countless times -- same null results -

the only thing Einstein forgot was to include the result of "the earth is stationary" which adequately explains the null result -- but the "scientific community" would not accept that possibility now would they !

we just do our research Elroch - go down the so-called "rabbit holes" globe apologists avoid like the plague !

"astronomical measurements" ------------

--------like "light years" --- that even heliocentric "scientists" cannot agree on !

if stellar parallax existed there would be no Zodiac constellations dating back to the ancients still observable today !

@ Noodles
the Michelson-Morley experiment did not detect the ether that was supposed to be there.
You chose - during your posts - to not even mention the ether.
The spelling 'aether' for the medium proven to not be there - was out of use by 1930 including because something found not to be there wasn't talked about much anyway.
That 1930 included included most british scientists apparently.
But sometimes the spelling 'aether' is used to refer to the old debunked concept.
Michelson-Morley spelled it 'ether' and that was back in the 1880's.
-----------
Noodles are you claiming the 'ether' as a light medium - exists?

I most certainly did mention the Aether/Ether & more playerafar -- scroll back some --

I said the Aether/Ether is still a controversial topic -

some have gone as far as to say "dark matter" is actually "the ether" - that "5th element" no one can see but makes up 99% of everything etc. !

False

@ Noodles
regarding you attacking science where its very strong - such as things like the roundness of the earth and the fact that the earth is very much in motion including different types of motion ...
instead of concentrating on issues where there's real controversy and unknowns recognized by scientists ...
apparently you don't concentrate on those because you think that would 'grace' the strong and established scientific knowledge that science has made so much progress with.
In other words - by attacking the strongest things it appears that by doing so you can then attack all of science - while using that science yourself - including to communicate here!
If you can then draw personal attack on yourself by doing what you do - then you can continue with your plan.
This does not mean I'm attacking you though.
Nor your views.
It means that when you make your claims (very related to EE's suggestions) that those 'talking points' are opportunities for others to post about the real science.
------------------
For example - Lorentz actually tried to defend the ether apparently - from the Michelson-Morley results.
But Einstein then used Lorentz's work to develop one of Einstein's four famous publications that all happened in 1905.
Einstein had much respect for Lorentz.
And then Lorentz backed Einstein. Not the only one to start doing so!

False

(indeed complete nonsense revealing you have no understanding of what stellar parallax is).

not my intention to "attack science" playerafar --- merely differentiating science/pseudoscience !

okay Elroch - I see the same stars traversing over me annually - so did the ancients - heck - -the Egyptian pyramids are still lined up with stars/constellations etc.

Noodles - for many posts in the last several hours - you were talking about Michelson-Morley and didn't mention 'the ether' nor 'the aether' at all in those posts.
You bypassed the purpose of the experiment - which was about that 'ether' ... it was already known for hundreds of years and since that the earth moves - both orbitally and spins axially too. It also moves with the galactic arm and with the galaxy too - as do trillions of other things.

Actually, the precession of the equinoxes means that the constellations seen from a SPECIFIC place on the globe change slowly over thousands of years (on a 26,000 year cycle. Ancient monuments aligned with the stars have drifted out of alignment over time!).
The constellations seen from the whole of the globe scarcely change. The main (small) change is some of the nearest stars move a tiny distance over time (because they are not stationary relative to us). I know you are a bit air-headed on the fact that the Southern hemisphere sees different constellations to the Northern hemisphere, because they are pointing in different directions!

This is all 100% consistent with stellar abberation - which is basically that the entire sky noves in a tiny ellipse each year. It is also consistent with stellar parallax - which is that nearby stars move in a small ellipse compared to distant stars, with the size of the ellipse being inversely proportional to their distance.

All beyond your ken, no doubt. You might be interested in the list of ancient monuments aligned with stars that have drifted out of alignment over the millennia! (see above link)

@ noodles - your intentions seem quite transparent.
Just the mention of the Michelson-Morley experiment is being used by you as an opportunity to attack the widely-accepted 'heliocentrism'. Your favourite attack probably.
And since others attack your views then you see that as further justification to attack their's.
Attacking views instead of persons.
But then there's ridiculing people's views.
Whether attacking mainstream science or 'alternative science' - ridiculing either is often seen as 'not to be tolerated'.
Flat-earthism and geocentrism draw much ridicule.
But that leads to another pair of subjects though - what opening posters will tolerate and what the website policies tolerate.

@noodles2112 NEVER takes on board information that would improve his understanding. He is committed to staying wrong.

@Elroch
I think there continues to be genuine controversy among scientists as to what the true nature of time is.
Volume is measured in 3-d units.
Time most commonly is measured in 1-d. But supposedly is more like a 3-d thing?
Energy/matter in motion - requiring space to do so - seems straightforward enough.
Time needing motion in order for time to exist - looks logical.
But relativity and quantum mechanics seem to 'relegate' time differently.
If time is 3-d then 'motion' (velocity) would seem to be relevant too.
And 'no universal now'.
Eddington (Lemaitre's professor) made a famous joke it seems - something like this:
That only three people in the world understand relativity and he doesn't know who the third person is.

playerafar - M/M was testing to measure movement of earth - like the other tests/experiments I mentioned - that all failed to do so - why Aireys test is referred to as "Aireys Failure" !

Elroch -- the 26,000 year called the Great Year --cool -- another helio/geo commonality -

we are entering the "age of Aquarius

indeed Groupthink & Doublespeak are the pumping hearts of the "scientific communities" -

how on earth do they know Polaris is 400 plus "light years" distant -- they don't -- because some say 343 light years - others say 400 light years - some say 434 light years etc. etc.

"light years" is obviously a theoretical construct - stars must be "light years" away for current "heliocentric science" to exist !

there are many out there that deem -- "flat earth" thinking -- is extremely dangerous !!

in other words, what I prefer myself is ---"Heliocentric Heretic" -

that sums it all up in a Nutshell -- pun intended

But if he can provoke particular people to 'bark' hard enough at him and in a very personal way then the effect could be to hurt the atmosphere while he runs away laughing.
That doesn't mean that that's what he intends though.
An 'effect' as opposed to an intention.
@Elroch - his constant attacks on heliocentrism and other things so many people accept as very very evident could have an effect of frustrating your efforts to present the real science?
Not if his posts are used as opportunites to present that real science and such presentation leads to many positive conversations between others about that real science and about other things - independent of his geocentrism and flat-earthism.