Tuesday, May 9, 2017 Game Recap & Discussion [SPOILERS]

[Volante]

2. "Atom" for the TS is flat-out wrong. "Photon" is correct.

"Einstein imagined the motion of these units of matter and gave the first experimental proof of their existence in 1905"
No, it's atoms.

[hbomb1947]

2. "Atom" for the TS is flat-out wrong. "Photon" is correct.

"Einstein imagined the motion of these units of matter and gave the first experimental proof of their existence in 1905"
No, it's atoms.

Yeah, photons aren't units of matter.

http://ansnuclearcafe.org/2012/03/20/al ... czVPm.dpbs

"Einstein also in 1905 mathematically proved the existence of atoms, and thus helped revolutionize all the sciences through the use of statistics and probability. "

[MattKnowles]

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."

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 got Scopes. Thought about Darrow and Teddy Roosevelt first.

I got Francis Macomber. I read that story and some of Hemingway's other short stories earlier this year. I heard nice things about "Green Hills of Africa" so I gave his short stories a try. I recommend sticking with "Old Man and the Sea", "The Sun Also Rises", and "A Farewell to Arms."

Plot Spoilers of The Short Happy Life of Francis Macomber:

Spoiler

The Short, Happy Life of Francis Macomber wasn't very enjoyable. Francis was kind of wimpy and went on a safari with his wife who liked to tease and goad him. His wife ended up sleeping with the outdoorsy safari tour guide while insulting Francis. Eventually Francis has an "Office Space"-like change of temperament and just stops caring about it. He becomes friends with the safari guide and they go hunt a lion together. His wife shoots at a lion because there is some danger and ends up killing Francis. So Francis finally started living his life and then he died.

I mixed up Simon Bolivar and Che Guevara. I knew Bolivar was more associated with Venezuela but I didn't know he was born in Basque Country in Spain and I didn't think of Che Guevara.

I missed Titicaca. I knew that and I'm not sure how I missed one of the most memorable names ever. I'll have to remember that one.

I'm happy that one of the contestants got Colombia correct. Similar clues have been missed before.

[opusthepenguin]

2. "Atom" for the TS is flat-out wrong. "Photon" is correct.

"Einstein imagined the motion of these units of matter and gave the first experimental proof of their existence in 1905"
No, it's atoms.

Yeah, photons aren't units of matter.

And 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."

[Volante]

2. "Atom" for the TS is flat-out wrong. "Photon" is correct.

"Einstein imagined the motion of these units of matter and gave the first experimental proof of their existence in 1905"
No, it's atoms.

Yeah, photons aren't units of matter.

And 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."

Wiki says this...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%9Cber ... n_Teilchen

[hbomb1947]

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."

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

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:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_QA8y-xGlRI

[davey]

2. "Atom" for the TS is flat-out wrong. "Photon" is correct.

"Einstein imagined the motion of these units of matter and gave the first experimental proof of their existence in 1905"
No, it's atoms.

Yeah, photons aren't units of matter.

And 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."

Einstein published 4 papers in 1905. One (the third) was on the "special theory."
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.

[opusthepenguin]

2. "Atom" for the TS is flat-out wrong. "Photon" is correct.

"Einstein imagined the motion of these units of matter and gave the first experimental proof of their existence in 1905"
No, it's atoms.

Yeah, photons aren't units of matter.

And 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."

Einstein published 4 papers in 1905. One (the third) was on the "special theory."
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.

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]

"Einstein imagined the motion of these units of matter and gave the first experimental proof of their existence in 1905"
No, it's atoms.

Yeah, photons aren't units of matter.

And 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."

Einstein published 4 papers in 1905. One (the third) was on the "special theory."
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.

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".

Yes. The clue was correct. But the misapprehension may be explained.

[opusthepenguin]

Yes. The clue was correct. But the misapprehension may be explained.

Oh, absolutely! Einstein. 1905. Imagined units of something-or-other. It's easy to go off course. (Though I draw the line at saying "photon" was negbait. )

[Troydozzy]

I'll admit that I'm the dumb-dumb and confess that I put Darrow down. I figured that it was either Darrow or Scopes, but I wasn't able to come up with a date for the trial in the allotted time. I guess that the date of is now something I have to commit to memory.

[opusthepenguin]

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

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.

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.

The phrase being translated is Die Relativitätstheorie. After the preface, of course, Einstein divides the discussion into die spezielle Relativitätstheorie and die allgemeine Relativitätstheorie. So in the German it would appear to be natural to think of Relativitytheory as one thing which has both a special and a general aspect or application. Those applications would, of course, be theories themselves. A sub-theory is still a theory. But it's also part of a larger theory.

My conclusion is that it was possible but not necessary to provide a more specific response for this clue.

[opusthepenguin]

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.

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.

[mxc_takeshi]

39 right.

Genius (3), Films (4), Dictionary (3), Geographic (2), Small (1), Stamp (2)
Page (4), South America (4), Included/Excluded (3), December 2016 (5), "FIELD" (3), Confiscate (5)

No Lach Trash; Daily Double: Captain Ahab

My immediate thought when I saw Bryan's name was Clarence Darrow, but "high school graduation" and "1919" quickly brought me to John Scopes.

[Category 13]

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.

Or, we could have just had smart contestants?

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.

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.
I got the Captain Ahab DD, but I expect many of the boardies did also.

[dhkendall]

Surprised at how many of you backed away from Darrow because of the years involved. Like many of you, I'll be checking the "considered Darrow at first" box, but only because for a second I thought Darrow was the teacher, not the lawyer. Once I remembered who was what, I wrote down the right answer. Ages had nothing to do with it.

Would they accept "the queen" for that one about the one person not allowed in the House of Commons?

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".

[Wheatley]

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.

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.

[SweepingDeveloper]

Observations in the DECEMBER 2016 category:

$800: Oh, duh! GJ has been meme-ified because of this.
$1,600: Listening to that NPR article paid off!

Oh, and I have noticed the ease in difficulty. Two $12K Coryats in a row for me! Still, I need to keep up with my Coryat classes...

[This Is Kirk!]

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.

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.

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.

[TomFromMD]

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.

Playa figures into place names, most notably Playa del Carmen. The French word plage is pretty close.
Berg figures into "iceberg". It's the same in German.

I got both of those, but I know some Spanish and German. I guessed the obvious volcano on Vulkan.

Fiume is a bit more obscure, IMHO. I had no guess. My wife guessed waterfall or rapids, off of the cognate flume. Flumen is the Latin.

I said Isle for Ile - I presume they'd have given me that.