Re: Tuesday, May 9, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]
Posted: Tue May 09, 2017 10:38 pm
A message board for fans of the Jeopardy! television show. MinnesotaMyron is our JBoardie of the Month!
https://jboard.tv/
Yeah, photons aren't units of matter.
https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein ... tivity.pdfhbomb1947 wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 10:23 pm The problem is that the clue appeared to be set up for the nonexistent "theory of relativity" to be an acceptable response (although I'm sure they would have accepted special theory of relativity). The clue would have been better worded if it had read along the lines of ". . . the special theory of this."
Wiki says this...opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 10:51 pmAnd Einstein didn't experimentally prove their existence in 1905. (Or--correct me if I'm wrong--in any other year?)
The only part of the clue that fits "photons" is "Einstein imagined the motion of these units."
You mean, the work that's titled Relativity: The General and Special Theory? Okay then. At most (assuming the translation into English was accurate), the phrase from the preface that you seized on proves either that AE needed a better editor, or that as a writer he makes a great scientist. It can't seriously be disputed that there are two separate Einsteinian theories of relativity. See Parts I and II into which the book you cited is divided. See also this video, and pay attention to the very first sentence that the host utters:MattKnowles wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 10:45 pmhttps://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein ... tivity.pdfhbomb1947 wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 10:23 pm The problem is that the clue appeared to be set up for the nonexistent "theory of relativity" to be an acceptable response (although I'm sure they would have accepted special theory of relativity). The clue would have been better worded if it had read along the lines of ". . . the special theory of this."
The first sentence of the preface of one of Einstein's own works uses the term "Theory of Relativity." It's absurd to argue that the phrase is incorrect
Einstein published 4 papers in 1905. One (the third) was on the "special theory."opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 10:51 pmAnd Einstein didn't experimentally prove their existence in 1905. (Or--correct me if I'm wrong--in any other year?)
The only part of the clue that fits "photons" is "Einstein imagined the motion of these units."
But none called photons "units of matter." And again, correct me if I'm wrong, the paper on the photoelectric effect did not provide experimental proof of the existence of photons. As I understand it, that paper hypothesized the existence of photons in order to explain the results of earlier experiments by Max Planck (and maybe Heinrich Hertz?) In other words, he did not provide "the first experimental proof of their existence in 1905".davey wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 11:04 pmEinstein published 4 papers in 1905. One (the third) was on the "special theory."opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 10:51 pmAnd Einstein didn't experimentally prove their existence in 1905. (Or--correct me if I'm wrong--in any other year?)
The only part of the clue that fits "photons" is "Einstein imagined the motion of these units."
The first 1905 paper developed a formula for the average displacement of particles subjected to the Brownian motion and had far-reaching effects in providing evidence for the atomic theory. The second paper, for which he won his Nobel prize, was a development of quantum theory to account for the phenomenon of the photoelectric effect.
--from the Oxford Who's Who in the 20th Century
So, one deals with atoms, one deals with photons.
Yes. The clue was correct. But the misapprehension may be explained.opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 11:23 pmBut none called photons "units of matter." And again, correct me if I'm wrong, the paper on the photoelectric effect did not provide experimental proof of the existence of photons. As I understand it, that paper hypothesized the existence of photons in order to explain the results of earlier experiments by Max Planck (and maybe Heinrich Hertz?) In other words, he did not provide "the first experimental proof of their existence in 1905".davey wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 11:04 pmEinstein published 4 papers in 1905. One (the third) was on the "special theory."opusthepenguin wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 10:51 pmAnd Einstein didn't experimentally prove their existence in 1905. (Or--correct me if I'm wrong--in any other year?)
The only part of the clue that fits "photons" is "Einstein imagined the motion of these units."
The first 1905 paper developed a formula for the average displacement of particles subjected to the Brownian motion and had far-reaching effects in providing evidence for the atomic theory. The second paper, for which he won his Nobel prize, was a development of quantum theory to account for the phenomenon of the photoelectric effect.
--from the Oxford Who's Who in the 20th Century
So, one deals with atoms, one deals with photons.
I'm willing to give Einstein the benefit of the doubt that he knew whether it was proper to speak of "the theory of relativity" in a generic sense as encompassing both the general and special theories.hbomb1947 wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 11:02 pmYou mean, the work that's titled Relativity: The General and Special Theory? Okay then. At most (assuming the translation into English was accurate), the phrase from the preface that you seized on proves either that AE needed a better editor, or that as a writer he makes a great scientist.MattKnowles wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 10:45 pm
https://www.ibiblio.org/ebooks/Einstein ... tivity.pdf
The first sentence of the preface of one of Einstein's own works uses the term "Theory of Relativity." It's absurd to argue that the phrase is incorrect
I forgot about the category! I just knew that Bryan and Darrow were both about the same age. There's no way Bryan spoke at Darrow's high school graduation unless Bryan was class valedictorian or something. And it would've been way earlier than 1919. Those guys were both getting up in years by the 1925 Scopes trial. So Darrow was an obvious impossibility regardless of the category. (Sorry to all you Darrow guessers. I've been in your shoes many times.) That left only one reasonable guess.MarkBarrett wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 9:03 pmToday it seems like there is a bad case of category-itis going around. FAMOUS TEACHERS not FAMOUS LAWYERS
Sure, I can poll about Darrow detours although sometimes the category is just as important as the clue.
I definately noticed a less difficult board than usual. I was rattling off correct answers (ahead of the contestants) at a good clip. I don't keep score but I estimate I knew about 80% of both boards. That's way better than a normal game for me.MarkBarrett wrote:The contestants today were indeed smart and I was not intending to slight them. The 61 clues as a whole today were a little easier than any set from May 1 - May 5. That's not the fault of the contestants. It's the writers that do some kind of adjustment for this tournament like all other tournaments. May 8 - 19 is not regular play material.OntarioQuizzer wrote:Or, we could have just had smart contestants?MarkBarrett wrote: The combined Coryat of 45,200 and only about 5 TS clues is people’s exhibit B about the slightly easier material for this tournament.
I'm almost certain they will. I'd be upset about it (as it's not just the queen, but any British monarch, King George VI wasn't allowed in either), but it's totally in character for them to accept "the queen".
Even though I had no idea about the answer, as soon as I saw the category I said, "I bet the answer is someone who's famous for something other than being a teacher." Because that just seemed like a Jeopardy thing to do.MarkBarrett wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 9:03 pm A few weeks ago letters vs. words was contagious. Today it seems like there is a bad case of category-itis going around. FAMOUS TEACHERS not FAMOUS LAWYERS
Sure, I can poll about Darrow detours although sometimes the category is just as important as the clue.
But you're saying you were wrong about this, correct? I guess you could argue John Scopes is most famous for being a defendant in a famous trial, but he was defending his actions as a teacher.Wheatley wrote: ↑Wed May 10, 2017 7:08 amEven though I had no idea about the answer, as soon as I saw the category I said, "I bet the answer is someone who's famous for something other than being a teacher." Because that just seemed like a Jeopardy thing to do.MarkBarrett wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 9:03 pm A few weeks ago letters vs. words was contagious. Today it seems like there is a bad case of category-itis going around. FAMOUS TEACHERS not FAMOUS LAWYERS
Sure, I can poll about Darrow detours although sometimes the category is just as important as the clue.
Playa figures into place names, most notably Playa del Carmen. The French word plage is pretty close.TenPoundHammer wrote: ↑Tue May 09, 2017 7:31 pm How did volcano have two negs? That's one of the more obvious cognates I've ever seen.
Berg = mountain, playa = beach, and fiume = river seemed extremely obscure though. I saw no way to puzzle those out barring my own fluency in Spanish.