Check this out:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1697475

 

Appearantly the coin falls more often on HEADS than on Tails.

I just found that REALLY funny.. think of all the decisions people made by flipping a coin...

 

:haha:

Ever heard of "the buttered side of bread always hits the ground?" It's true (60/40 chances)!

Seriously? Maybe it's because of the gravity of the butter..?

 

eh, well, at least you're not making decisions by the falling of the bread.

 

Whats next by the way? We'll find out that Murphy had scientific justifications behind his rules?

 

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA The end of the world as we know it!!! AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!

Oh yeah, what do you think would happen, when you strap toast (butter side up) to the top of a cat, then drop it? The butter AND the cat would have to hit the ground first. It'd levitate, and spin, because of the conflicting laws of nature.

ROFL

that might explain most of the ESP that goes into predicting a coin flip...

to build the embossed head on a coin requires more metal (weight) than it does on the tails side, the head is also more rounded therefore better aerodynamicly streamlined.

as for the butter, it`s considerably more dense and therfore over a distance will try to orientate itself heaviest part down and lighter side upwards (like the feathers on a arrow or dart).

as for the cat it will make little to no difference as the cats mass is considerably greater than the toast and is also capable of actively re-orientating itself during a drop.

 

sorry and all that, I just felt like being a spoil sport

Yeah, about the coin and the butter - it's pretty much what i figured.. good to read it so scientifically ordered though

 

That said...

---

 

WOW.

 

Okay, YT, you're officially geeker than me.

 

And I mean that as the greatest compliment, as only a true geek can!

 

:worship:

 

~moo

I accept the compliment, thnx hun

Actually, I have been thinking about this coin toss situation. Weight doesnt effect fall speed, so the rotation isn't caused by weight. Neither does the weight effect the bread, and butter. What actually causes the bread, and butter problem is the height of the table that it falls from. The coin toss is another rotation problem similar to the height of a table. The coin, if starting on heads, will rotate back to heads because of the average height of a flip, and the distance back to the hand. Take the feathers off a dart, and it does not rotate to the heavier front end. The feathers cause rotation because of the wind resistance.

 

Pincho.

No, weight affects center of gravity, and aerodynamic drag will rotate it differently.

Ahh yes that seems right.

To be fair, aerodynamics of the coin have very little role to play considering the forces involved; i mean, yes, if you had a 50m coin, and tossed it in a 70mph gale, then I think we'd take it into account, but a 2cm coin, launched into the air at a not very high speed and in a moderately windless environment will encounter negligable forces due to the air resistance and aerodynamical properties of the coin.

but still, how many of you read the link? it didn't say that heads came up most, that's actually quite off topic. it said that a coin toss is not random, but that with a very powerful computer that has every known variable that can impact a certain coin toss will predict with 100% cetainty the result of the coin toss.

 

the link (if you make logical connections) just basically says that chaos theory exists, and fate exists on a large (non-quantum) scale.

 

then it goes on to say that humans are biased in that they subconsciously catch the coin so that it lands on the same side it started on. (and heads is most commonly on top at the start)

 

 

P.S. the difference in weight and aerodynamic properties between the 2 sides is so insignificant that it will only change 50:50 to 48:52, or something like that

iglak -- that actually had me thinking.

 

Isn't ALL random things non-random? I mean, we define them as random because *we* have too many variables to predict the ending, but isn't EVERY situation we define as random, can ultimately be predicted (theoretically) if we had ALL THE VARIABLES in our hand?

 

The link is more about random not being random (which is already known) and relates more to the statistics of the fall.

 

At least thats what i understood from it.

mooeypoo said in post # :

Isn't ALL random things non-random? I mean, we define them as random because *we* have too many variables to predict the ending, but isn't EVERY situation we define as random, can ultimately be predicted (theoretically) if we had ALL THE VARIABLES in our hand?

that's my theory, that we have fate and a predetermined future, and there is nothing we can do to change it (not to be confused with an absence of free will).

But we cannot have all the variables, not even theoretically. You would have to make measurments with infinite precision for that, and as far as we can tell, the infinitely precise doesn't exist- it is a fiction.

iglak said in post # :

that's my theory, that we have fate and a predetermined future, and there is nothing we can do to change it (not to be confused with an absence of free will).

 

Well, aside from your 'We still have free will, we just can't choose our future!', you're proposing a form of Laplacian Determinism. Quantum Theory specifically denies Laplacian Determinism.

Yeh, iglak, it sounds like your theory contradicts itself...

 

but isn't there the theory of Chaos that states something similar to this..? impossibility to predict infinite number of variables...?

 

Don't really remember that one but I tinnk the idea is similar

 

 

~moo