Put a nickel on top of a quarter. Or, use whatever coins you have with the top one smaller than the bottom one. Hold them above your other hand. Drop them. They will rotate and reverse places. Get the distance just right and they will land softly in your lower hand. Great party trick. đź™‚

I used my Samsung Galaxy s5 to film this at 1/8 speed. YouTube allowed me to trim out some dead time and shorten the video. It also did some minor enhancements to lighting and color.

After a year of using the phone, it was time to try some unused features. I am not an avid phone user.

It’s not consistent, though. I’d say I’m getting the effect about 40% of the time. I could spend some time figuring out which variables are affecting it, but I have to go to work. đź™‚

I suppose this refers specifically to Newton’s 2nd Law: the acceleration of an object depends directly upon the net force acting upon the object, and inversely upon the mass of the object. Is this referring to when the mass of an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is therefore decreased?

After I asked this, I read:
” Newtonian mechanics is exactly revealed to be an approximation to reality, valid to great accuracy at lower speeds. As the relevant speeds increase toward the speed of light, acceleration no longer follows classical equations. As speeds approach that of light, the acceleration produced by a given force decreases, becoming infinitesimally small as light speed is approached; an object with mass can approach this speed asymptotically, but never reach it.

Unless the state of motion of an object is known, it is totally impossible to distinguish whether an observed force is due to gravity or to accelerationâ€”gravity and inertial acceleration have identical effects. Albert Einstein called this the principle of equivalence, and said that only observers who feel no force at allâ€”including the force of gravityâ€”are justified in concluding that they are not accelerating.”- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

Yes. Suppose you have a small truck with a weak engine. Step on the gas full throttle. You get a certain amount of acceleration.

Fill the truck with sand or gravel and step on the gas full throttle again. You will get much less acceleration. Double the mass. Half the acceleration. You understand that well.

I just wonder whether Newton knew about this “principle of equivalence” in his time, or whether this is the beginning in understanding how he differed from Einstein? Here’s where I hope you help me understand E = mc2, maybe you just did.

I am certain Newton knew nothing about the equivalence principle. But, if he had a chance to sit down with Einstein to talk it over, he probably would have come away enlightened.

As to E = mc2, it is too late. I must go get my beauty rest. đź™‚ I worked hard today mowing the lawn and trimming trees.

I loved the article, thanks! Especially, when he mentions how careful one has to be with Einstein’s discoveries (nuclear bombs) and if one were to apply this equation literally.

I also read in a Wiki article: Mass and Energy equivalence:

“In physics, there are two distinct concepts of mass: the gravitational mass and the inertial mass. The gravitational mass is the quantity that determines the strength of the gravitational field generated by an object, as well as the gravitational force acting on the object when it is immersed in a gravitational field produced by other bodies. The inertial mass, on the other hand, quantifies how much an object accelerates if a given force is applied to it. The massâ€“energy equivalence in special relativity refers to the inertial mass. However, already in the context of Newton gravity, the Weak Equivalence Principle is postulated: the gravitational and the inertial mass of every object are the same.”

This excerpt also helped me understand some of it.

Until you might do that, places like this are great for seeing what others do who are very skilled. This page updates every day with new images. http://spaceweathergallery.com/index.php

Reblogged this on Our View From Iowa and commented:

In case you have nothing else to do today…

I’ll be darned….

Isn’t science grand?

It’s not consistent, though. I’d say I’m getting the effect about 40% of the time. I could spend some time figuring out which variables are affecting it, but I have to go to work. đź™‚

You must be in great demand, Jim. đź™‚

Good one. đź™‚

Very good!

I suppose this refers specifically to Newton’s 2nd Law: the acceleration of an object depends directly upon the net force acting upon the object, and inversely upon the mass of the object. Is this referring to when the mass of an object is increased, the acceleration of the object is therefore decreased?

After I asked this, I read:

” Newtonian mechanics is exactly revealed to be an approximation to reality, valid to great accuracy at lower speeds. As the relevant speeds increase toward the speed of light, acceleration no longer follows classical equations. As speeds approach that of light, the acceleration produced by a given force decreases, becoming infinitesimally small as light speed is approached; an object with mass can approach this speed asymptotically, but never reach it.

Unless the state of motion of an object is known, it is totally impossible to distinguish whether an observed force is due to gravity or to accelerationâ€”gravity and inertial acceleration have identical effects. Albert Einstein called this the principle of equivalence, and said that only observers who feel no force at allâ€”including the force of gravityâ€”are justified in concluding that they are not accelerating.”-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivalence_principle

Is why this coin trick works, right?

When the coins are released, they come free from one of my fingers before the other one. That imparts a rotation.

I put my lower hand at a distance to allow for 1/2 of a rotation by the time they reach it. That I learned from experience.

Yes. Suppose you have a small truck with a weak engine. Step on the gas full throttle. You get a certain amount of acceleration.

Fill the truck with sand or gravel and step on the gas full throttle again. You will get much less acceleration. Double the mass. Half the acceleration. You understand that well.

I just wonder whether Newton knew about this “principle of equivalence” in his time, or whether this is the beginning in understanding how he differed from Einstein? Here’s where I hope you help me understand E = mc2, maybe you just did.

I am certain Newton knew nothing about the equivalence principle. But, if he had a chance to sit down with Einstein to talk it over, he probably would have come away enlightened.

As to E = mc2, it is too late. I must go get my beauty rest. đź™‚ I worked hard today mowing the lawn and trimming trees.

Ok, thanks.

Hey! I am now awake and have coffee in me. đź™‚

About E = mc2 , I think you will enjoy this. http://www.universetoday.com/114617/a-fun-way-of-understanding-emc2/

Thank you Jim!

I loved the article, thanks! Especially, when he mentions how careful one has to be with Einstein’s discoveries (nuclear bombs) and if one were to apply this equation literally.

I also read in a Wiki article: Mass and Energy equivalence:

“In physics, there are two distinct concepts of mass: the gravitational mass and the inertial mass. The gravitational mass is the quantity that determines the strength of the gravitational field generated by an object, as well as the gravitational force acting on the object when it is immersed in a gravitational field produced by other bodies. The inertial mass, on the other hand, quantifies how much an object accelerates if a given force is applied to it. The massâ€“energy equivalence in special relativity refers to the inertial mass. However, already in the context of Newton gravity, the Weak Equivalence Principle is postulated: the gravitational and the inertial mass of every object are the same.”

This excerpt also helped me understand some of it.

We all take small steps when we are learning new things. You are making strides forward. Good for you.

I just got in from viewing Saturn and Jupiter with the telescope. They are both beautiful things to see.

Lucky you!!

Here is what they looked like at 75x in the telescope. These images are from a software view on the computer.

That software is so neat, thanks for sharing this tonight! I’m really tempted to get a telescope.

Until you might do that, places like this are great for seeing what others do who are very skilled. This page updates every day with new images.

http://spaceweathergallery.com/index.php

Thank you Jim!

This is very similar to what I saw. My view was in better focus. http://spaceweathergallery.com/full_image.php?image_name=Esmeralda-Sosa-saturno-20052015-002_1432226871.jpg

Thanks Jim!

Nice! I just love these kinds of tricks.

Fun! I’m going to try this. Also fun to see what a phone can do. Thanks, Jim đź™‚

A key is to have the optimal drop distance. Also, relax your lower hand for a soft landing. Good luck.