That is poor logic Beasley2K, by that logic if a question said 'name a striped animal' and someone put in zebra then it would be incorrect if the author was thinking of a tiger.
Alchemy is not an answer; alchemists sought the philosopher's stone in order to turn base metals into gold. As they never found it, they couldn't complete the process, so alchemy itself is not an answer.
Exactly Cariad. Alchemy never turned base metals into gold, so it can't be the answer. The philosopher's stone was what alchemists believed would do the trick.
That is weird logic cariad and wombat. The philosophers stone never turned metals into gold either, because they wouldnt find it because it doesnt exist! How would the philosophers stone be a valid answer by that logic if alchemy isnt. (You could just as easily say, even if they had found something other than the philosopher's stone to turn metal into gold, it would still be alchemy.
as for whether it should be accepted or not I am neutral. Tried alchemy first then thought of the other. The first isnt an item like other things on the list but it does fit the clue
The question is about magical things, not types of magic. Alchemy is a class of magic, or maybe considered a mix of science and magic, but it isn't a "thing" like the rest of this list
I also tried alchemy and crucifix. I got the latter answer, missed the first one. Also, Kyrptonite isn't magical, it's radioactive. Neither is Unobtanium (whose properties are not even explained in the movie), Dilithium, or Flubber. All are substances with rare or unusual properties, but, at least according to the world they exist in, not magical or metaphysical properties.
@kalbahamut If the things you listed were real, they would indeed be indistinguishable from magic. Are you able to explain how they do what they do? ("It's radioactive" isn't a strong enough answer for why kryptonite affects Kryptonians and not humans.) Flubber would most definitely be indistinguishable from magic, since perpetual motion is impossible according to the known laws of physics.
Cockroaches have slow cell cycles and are less at risk of damage from radiation than humans are. Maybe Superman has a much higher rate of cell cycle than humans do. That would make sense as he's basically indestructible. Not that Superman is plausible science fiction, I would even classify it as fantasy based on how implausible it is, but I still wouldn't call kryptonite magical.
Under the directions there is an informational note that says *includes things from futuristic science. Therefore the quiz creator chose to include those things in his quiz. Alchemy is indeed a process and not an actual thing therefore the quiz creator is correct in including "philosopher's stone" and not "alchemy"
How is alchemy not an actual thing. By definition, it is an actual THING! There is no reference whatsoever that differentiates between physical things and abstract/ideological things. Even if so, an alchemist is a physical thing.
I understand people are really bothered about the definition of "thing" and whether or not alchemy qualifies, but I cannot sit idly by when someone says that an alchemist is a thing. Is a teacher a thing? Is a doctor? Is a zookeeper?
I tried philosophers stone but it didn't work, so I remembered my Harry Potter and tried sorcerer's stone and it worked. Maybe I inadvertently spelled philosopher's wrong, but still thought it was funny that sorcerer's worked since it really shouldn't.
Krptonite doesn't have magical properties. It emits radiation that effects the way Superman's body processes the light from Earth's yellow sun. In no way is it "magic". Superman does have a weakness to magic though, so you get some points there.
over a year later...magic still doesn't work, and should. he is weak to it, and the category is "magical-things" which magic is very much a part of....
'Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.' is not the equivalent of saying that technology=magic. It's a comment on ignorance rather than on technology.
Considering it's been ten years since the last Star Trek series went off the air, I'd say they're dying off. And the new movies don't count; anyone who embraces them isn't a real Trekkie.
I'll admit, it wasn't the first thing I tried, but I still think Caledfwlch and Caliburn should be accepted for King Arthur's sword. Those are technically more correct than Excalibur, even though all three names refer to the same sword.
wasn't it the snow that made Frosty come to life? i mean, i know the hat helped, but wasn't it because the first snowfall of the year happened on Christmas, and so therefore it was a magic snow?
I got the vessel one, but my mind immediately went to "the vessel with the pestle holds the brew that is true" and it took me a minute to get it out of my head.
I actually tried Deathstick and Wand of Destiny first for the Harry Potter wand one. They were some of the other wands from the past that were most likely the (insert correct answer here) under different names. Those ones came to mind first, and it took a moment to remember the main name.
as for whether it should be accepted or not I am neutral. Tried alchemy first then thought of the other. The first isnt an item like other things on the list but it does fit the clue
Somewhat reaching on some things.
Also I tried Lamp / Genie Lamp... didn't think to type MAGIC lamp.. BS
The reliance upon those stupid books/movies just seems to be waaaaaaaaaaay too disproportional on this site.
* old silk hat
* magic hat
* magicians hat
I'd probably take "hat".