Cattrina
Registered Collector
Registered: 11-2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 1450
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Destroying an Object dilemma
We all know destroying one Object, creates ONE Object -> a one new item becomes an Object instead.
But what about if you, destroy the Flask & cap and went into the Room naked (magically without any tools... (or it just could be any two Objects like the Postcard and the Matchbook)
Would you turn into an Object? Propably
but what would happen to the other Object if no replacement Object available?
Could you this way turn half of your family and friends into superhumans?
Last edited by Cattrina, 6/15/2012, 12:36 pm
|
|
6/15/2012, 12:32 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Cattrina
Send PM to Cattrina
|
Jintosh
Registered Collector
Registered: 06-2009
Posts: 1581
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Destroying an Object dilemma
Joe went in with all cloths and wallet, etc.
The room clearly picked HIM as the object replacement.
I think the room would STRONGLY want to pick like items. And if no like item is available, it may wait till one shows up. (speculation)
When Anna was rescued in the end, she asked if the bad man was gone. The bad man that was attacking when she went INTO the room. For her, it seems like only a moment passed since she went into the room.
Room 9 also held onto the woman's essence since the 1960's without aging her. Time NOT proceeding is a common theme for the room. So the energy of a destroyed object may be able to be put on hold until a suitable replacement shows up.
--- Jintosh, The KeyMaster, OA, RMC
Prop Replicas at http://www.TheLostRoom.org |
|
6/15/2012, 1:36 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Jintosh
Send PM to Jintosh
|
Cattrina
Registered Collector
Registered: 11-2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 1450
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Destroying an Object dilemma
Sounds plausible *nods*
|
|
6/16/2012, 9:47 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Cattrina
Send PM to Cattrina
|
thirt33n
Registered Collector
Registered: 04-2012
Location: The Time Vortex
Posts: 151
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Destroying an Object dilemma
Perhaps the replacement doesn't have to be within the Room itself. A replacement Object could manifest somewhere out in the world. The Law of Conservation of Objects could be tied towards proximity rather than presence within the Room itself.
|
|
6/16/2012, 1:13 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thirt33n
Send PM to thirt33n
Blog
|
dmv1066
Registered Collector
Registered: 12-2011
Posts: 787
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Destroying an Object dilemma
I see Cat's point and further we lack a basic understanding of the metaphysics of the room.
The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics
don't give much room for creation and destruction
In a board sense we use Destroyed in a social
context. That some thing loses its functionality
through fire, rust or a really big hammer. But in
a greater sense the atoms are still present and
even when we raise the temp to melt metal we
have merely temporally change its state. From
the Universe's point of view we haven't reduced
its over all mass.
Now we known physics in the room are way out
side of normal or should I say objects removed from
the room act outside the bounds of our normal
physical ranges. And by outside I mean entropy
is gone and there is a communications channel
that occurs outside any normal means. And as
Jin pointed out the Room plays loose and fast with
the time line, and a conscientious selection of
what it moves around in the time line.
Every turn we take seem to place us back at
a central truth: the Room is Conscientious. And
it understands our conscientiousness. It understands
that a Eddie with a big old hole in him is not
functional and thus a new hairless ape needs
to be objectified. Of course then we are left
with the question why must a replacement occur
What purpose is severed? Is it a balance of
matter between two reality? Or is it that the
tools to work the universe must all be in place
to get the job done?
I believe as Cat stated that the room needs like
items in exchange for broken objects, so the room
would go grab your family. I think it is quite possible
Anna is a object also. A replacement for Conroy. If
Joe and Anna where made nonfunctional the room
would get more. Every time someone uses the objects
to cross over, and I use that terms loosely. They add
to the number of human objects under the effect of
the room.
Last a question how many objects do you think have
been destroyed?
TomRMC
|
|
6/16/2012, 4:05 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to dmv1066
Send PM to dmv1066
Blog
|
Jintosh
Registered Collector
Registered: 06-2009
Posts: 1581
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Destroying an Object dilemma
quote:
Last a question how many objects do you think have
been destroyed?
1. Eddie and 2. the object that created the Life magazine at a later date than the Event.
--- Jintosh, The KeyMaster, OA, RMC
Prop Replicas at http://www.TheLostRoom.org |
|
6/17/2012, 12:02 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Jintosh
Send PM to Jintosh
|
Cattrina
Registered Collector
Registered: 11-2008
Location: Finland
Posts: 1450
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Destroying an Object dilemma
I fear maybe the Toilet Paper Object, Kleenexes and the Unwrapped soap may have also been destroyed.
Same goes with some of the liquid contents in bottles, maybe Eddie used some of his aftershave, shoepolish or Campo Phoenique before he realizes he was an Object.
But we still do not know how far this destroying goes, what entity IS a whole Object.
If the bottle cap is an Object, then the contents is also, drinking the contents would be destroying an Object.
I wish we had Chris to give us more info!
|
|
6/17/2012, 1:44 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Cattrina
Send PM to Cattrina
|
thirt33n
Registered Collector
Registered: 04-2012
Location: The Time Vortex
Posts: 151
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Destroying an Object dilemma
It creates a question: is the Brown Shoe Polish within the Shoe Polish part of the Shoe Polish Object or its own separate entity?
That is, if there were liquid in the Flask (whiskey or something) would the whiskey be part of the Flask or would we have Whiskey as an Object?
It seems that using an Object in its normal capacity counts as activating it, therefore it seems logical that a liquid Object would have to be drunk or applied.
Really we can make know headway in this until as Cat noted we get confirmation from the creators.
As a sidebar I gotta wonder if we've inspired anything on their end with all the theory and questioning that's gone on. :P
|
|
6/25/2012, 12:19 am
|
Link to this post
Send Email to thirt33n
Send PM to thirt33n
Blog
|
Jintosh
Registered Collector
Registered: 06-2009
Posts: 1581
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Destroying an Object dilemma
A liquid would be a separate object from the bottle it's in.
Buuut....the liquid is all connected by a cohesive bond. The liquid would remain a single object. The bonds of the liquid can not be broken outside of the motel room.
The liquid could be removed from the bottle, but only as a single object and put into some other container.
--- Jintosh, The KeyMaster, OA, RMC
Prop Replicas at http://www.TheLostRoom.org |
|
6/25/2012, 1:18 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to Jintosh
Send PM to Jintosh
|
dmv1066
Registered Collector
Registered: 12-2011
Posts: 787
|
|
Reply | Quote
|
|
Re: Destroying an Object dilemma
Interesting!
Could you pour the signal malt of Glenlivet out of the flask?
If poured onto a flat surface would it spread out to the molecular level?
so we got shoe polish, shaving bracer, scotch, and battery acid.
and maybe water on the soap and Polaroid developer on the package of yet to be found Polaroids.
I don't even want to think about the earwax!
Come to think of it . . . has Eddie pee-D in 40 years?
Maybe I should have stuck with the earwax?
TomRMC
|
|
6/25/2012, 3:11 pm
|
Link to this post
Send Email to dmv1066
Send PM to dmv1066
Blog
|
