> We never recalibrate the g constant in our calculations nor we wait a person to announce what the g for this quarter will be

Sure. But we do update all manner of atmospheric, gravitometric and similar factors in our flight and orbital models. Once again, calibration frequency is a poor predictor of model quality. There are useless models in every domain involving immutable constants. And there are very good numerical methods that have no constants per se.

Planes don't crash all at once every few years and resume flying only when the airports renegotiated the basic laws of physics. What you are referring to as "re-calibration" in planes and rockets is actually stochastic control and is a completely different topic to calibrating a stochastic model. But hey, I guess you like your metaphors like your risk models: incorrect.

Wilmott covered model robustness and calibration frequency. Any time you have to adjust an unobserved term in your SDE (like market price of risk, for example) you are changing the model. So if your model has to be changed every x minutes else it gives wrong results, you're not "adjusting your inputs", you are just using T/x shitty models.

Some sense.

Comparing financial markets to physics is pretty much what made it all explode last two times.

It is getting ready to explode again.

The asset market has been sedately rising for a decade. Which makes models like really good.

\sarcasm{ON} This time is different \sarcasm{OFF}

No it is not.