Does True Randomness Actually Exist?

They don't need to adjust for it individually. The wind is a way bigger source of course adjustments. So what they do is to regularly adjust the course to allow for slow drift, keeping pointing in roughly the direction they want to go. Modern autopilots do allow for wind, calculating the "crab angle", where you point the roughly right amount upwind of the location you want to get to.

indeed - takeoff - level off - straight as can be - from point A to point B

I am waiting for the captain to say --- "welcome aboard -- today we shall be cruising at an altitude of 40,000 feet traveling approximately 550 mph ------- oh -- & by the way -- we shall also be traveling 67,000mph around the sun" !!

not the time #6662

Anyways they don't say that because we're just about always traveling 67,000mph around the sun anyways so it's irrelevant

the earth is said to be accelerating & decelerating from approximately 67,000mph around the sun -

so its Not "constant motion/velocity" !

Perhaps not - but even banking a slight degree is very risky traveling at high speeds -- especially for commercial airlines -

I read that these supersonic planes actually "expand/contract" a good deal - due to the extreme heat attained while traveling Mach 2, 3 , 4 etc..

I never said constant, I said irrelevant

Hello debators, may I know what this is all about?

TenGolf-TPOT - yes I know -- its all "negated" -- no calculations/adjustments necessary -- its already "taken care of" via "atmospheric drag/conservation of momentum"

#6670 please

You don't understand. While other people base what they know on what they understand and what other people understand, you base yours on your lack of understanding and ignore everyone who does understand, all of the time. Daft.

I was going to explain velocity and acceleration to you again, but there is no point. You don't understand it, because you do not apply your brain to it.

I didn't say that either, I said irrelevant. The speed they're saying is relative to the Earth's surface while the 67,000 mph figure is relative to the Sun

I just posted the explanation via atmospheric drag/conservation of momentum Elroch -

is there another "explanation" I fail to understand ?

TenGolf -- that does not negate the plane traveling 67,000mph around the sun now does it ! ?

No it does not. But it's irrelevant.

that is what I mean - "no worries" -- "its all taken care of" -- on the "chalkboard" !

I'm one of them. I certainly don't want to be lumped in with them.

I'm sure noodles is enjoying what he's doing. It's a game. I confess that it would bore me and hence I only post regarding what I genuinely believe to be the case.

"Scientism" is a good word. It sort of sums up the attitude of some of the people who are the equivalent in the world of science of knowledgeable spectators in the world of chess. There's a word for them, which isn't acolytes. I think it's Kibitzers or something but my first wife was Jewish.

My criticism is a very vague and generalised one. It is that some scientists and theoreticians try to appear as having knowledge they do not have. Obviously the people you keep calling trolls may have that attitude but they are not scientists. They're rather like football fans and their opponents can be like fans of a different team.

The real problem with the Big Bang is that it is obviously a holding theory for a melange of opinions and half-facts which is constantly fluid but which at any time can be rolled out to provide the goggle-eyed masses with the current true facts of the current state of play, represented as "the best it is possible to come up with at the moment". And it's that representation which is false. It's laughable, actually. Why should everything "NOW" be correct and the product of good thinking although different from everything 50 years ago? Yes we have better techniques at getting evidence and data but the problem is those interpreting the data. All a little bit too human, which is a euphemism for something.