Jump to content

The Not So Random Coin Toss


mooeypoo

Recommended Posts

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!!!!!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.