PDA

View Full Version : How are Artifacts made?



aretood2
July 29th, 2012, 05:55 PM
I think we all ask ourselves this question. So why not take some guesses and discuss them? Also, I think I remember hearing or reading that this question will be answered this summer...so we could also discuss the truth then on this thread too...if this is true that is.

Anyway, I found an excellent explination that invovles Eureka on tvtropes.org

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/WMG/Warehouse13[/URL]]

"The crossover episodes mean that the Artifact from the early seasons of Eureka exists in the Warehouse 13 universe as well. On Eureka, it has being shown that the Artifact is capable of strong outbursts of energy, and those exposed to the energy of the Artifact can gain immense powers (the two people affected on the show were at close range, the first Ascended to a Higher Plane of Existence (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AscendedToAHigherPlaneOfExistence)
, the second was said to be able to control the "Akashic field" and also exhibited powers like being able to heal others before being separated from the Artifact's energies by a teleporter). It has evidently being buried on Earth for at least millions of years, so if it periodically emitted energy pulses (dampened by rock and distance), it is possible that the people or objects that got hit could have being imbued with some extra sort of knowledge or power (though far less and more limited that the effects of the Artifact at close range). This would explain why most artifacts are connected with people of note (they used their power/knowledge or an affected artifact in their possession to gain fame/notoriety), and why there are so few people working at the Warehouse in modern times (even 40 years ago in "Where and When", you could see other possible collection teams in the background). Previously the Warehouse was a larger organization, but after the Artifact was discovered and contained at Eureka, it couldn't affect as many people, so most of the collection since then is to recover artifacts from before it was discovered, so fewer teams are needed today."

Opinions? Ideas? Random humorous comments?

Gatefan1976
July 29th, 2012, 07:30 PM
Do you know what an "Akashic Field" is Tood?

aretood2
July 29th, 2012, 07:40 PM
Do you know what an "Akashic Field" is Tood?

Never heard of it as far as science goes. Why do you ask?

jelgate
July 29th, 2012, 07:42 PM
Magic

Gatefan1976
July 29th, 2012, 07:46 PM
Never heard of it as far as science goes. Why do you ask?

welll..............
Jel is right, it is a "magical idea", rather than a scientific one.

aretood2
July 29th, 2012, 07:51 PM
welll..............
Jel is right, it is a "magical idea", rather than a scientific one.

Your point? If you want my take to it, it'd have something to do with exotic energy. Which then falls under the question of what is magical. I mean...I'm sure a Boeing 747 or a Blackhawk helicopter would seem pretty magical to a caveman. I don't peg WH13 to be one that takes science anymore seriously than Eureka, as in hard sci fi type thing.

By "hard sci fi" I mean that it doesn't stick to what is known to be possible by our scientific knowledge. For example, teleportation would not make it into a hard sci fic work, neither would inertial dampeners or magical artificial gravity a la star trek or traveling faster than the speed of light.

Gatefan1976
July 29th, 2012, 08:05 PM
Your point? If you want my take to it, it'd have something to do with exotic energy. Which then falls under the question of what is magical. I mean...I'm sure a Boeing 747 or a Blackhawk helicopter would seem pretty magical to a caveman. I don't peg WH13 to be one that takes science anymore seriously than Eureka, as in hard sci fi type thing.
Ahhh
But is this "exotic energy" real, according to the scientific method, or not?



By "hard sci fi" I mean that it doesn't stick to what is known to be possible by our scientific knowledge. For example, teleportation would not make it into a hard sci fic work, neither would inertial dampeners or magical artificial gravity a la star trek or traveling faster than the speed of light.
Is what we *know* the limit of what is possible?

aretood2
July 29th, 2012, 08:24 PM
Ahhh
But is this "exotic energy" real, according to the scientific method, or not?

First you'd have to define it. I just used a vague catch all term.


Is what we *know* the limit of what is possible?
That's irrelevant. Something is either hard sci fi or not and that term is based on contemporary science. So if Jules Verne decided to write a sci fi about a future where people used boxes to communicate over a interconnected network and small hand held machines to make phone calls across thousands of miles to the other side of the world via some strange unexplained form of "radiation," it would not be a hard sci fi. Because, as far as I know, such things were not even possible based on their understanding of science...that is until some jerk predicted radio waves in the 1860's and some numskull decided that he should construct the first speech transmitting contraption.

Gatefan1976
July 29th, 2012, 08:31 PM
First you'd have to define it. I just used a vague catch all term.

Umm, that would take QUITE awhile :P
Perhaps you would be better off googling it? I find it a bit odd however that you would *use* a term and not know what it even meant :S



That's irrelevant. Something is either hard sci fi or not and that term is based on contemporary science. So if Jules Verne decided to write a sci fi about a future where people used boxes to communicate over a interconnected network and small hand held machines to make phone calls across thousands of miles to the other side of the world via some strange unexplained form of "radiation," it would not be a hard sci fi. Because, as far as I know, such things were not even possible based on their understanding of science...that is until some jerk predicted radio waves in the 1860's and some numskull decided that he should construct the first speech transmitting contraption.

Ummm....................
If something can be done, does our understanding or lack thereof determine weather it can be done at all?

This is sorta useless without you knowing what Akashic fields are, at least conceptually.

WingedPegasus
July 29th, 2012, 11:14 PM
Ehh, it's just fiction explaining other fiction. :P I just suspend disbelief. :D


Umm, that would take QUITE awhile :P
Perhaps you would be better off googling it? I find it a bit odd however that you would *use* a term and not know what it even meant :S



Ummm....................
If something can be done, does our understanding or lack thereof determine weather it can be done at all?

This is sorta useless without you knowing what Akashic fields are, at least conceptually.

He was just quoting tvtropes--it's not like he was trying to teach a course on the term. O.o


I looked it up for kicks, and haven't found much other than this:


The overall idea behind the concept of an Akashic Field is that behind the materialistic and mechanistic world there is in fact another realm of interaction. This book presents compelling evidence for this from the fields of cosmology, quantum physics, biology and studies of consciousness. It is like a subtle communication network that underlies physical reality and that connects every point in space with every other point, and every thing with every other thing. This communication network operates in the realm of pure information that underlies empirical existence and thus does not rely on the transport of physical energy, hence, through this field, interactions can occur instantaneously regardless of physical separation and without any channel for the mechanistic transport of energy. Furthermore, like things tend to interact more strongly with like things, thus humans interact more strongly with humans, galaxies with galaxies and so on. The principle empirical and observable effect of this field is coherence between phenomena across any distances.
http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/The%20Akashic%20Field.html

I'm calling hogwash, but to each his own. *shrugs* :P

Gatefan1976
July 29th, 2012, 11:40 PM
Ehh, it's just fiction explaining other fiction. :P I just suspend disbelief. :D

Fair call :P



He was just quoting tvtropes--it's not like he was trying to teach a course on the term. O.o

Wasn't asking him to, but having a basic idea of what an Akashic field (which is all I asked) would be useful if you are gonna use it as a concept.




I looked it up for kicks, and haven't found much other than this:


http://www.anandavala.info/TASTMOTNOR/The%20Akashic%20Field.html

Seems to be enough for a basic idea, I would expect people on a sci-fi forum to look at that and say "so you mean the force?" :lol:



I'm calling hogwash, but to each his own. *shrugs* :P

Call what you want, *IF* W13 has used the idea of Akashic field theory to create "artifacts", then it's perfectly reasonable within that environment to expect artifacts to follow those rules is it not?
It's not like I'm asking you to believe in them is it?!? :P

escyos
July 30th, 2012, 12:13 AM
Sounds reasonable, I always assumed it was just the same form of energy that held together to universe, just did different things to different objects. I never assumed magic, even thinking that I would assume magic makes me feel really stupid.

aretood2
July 30th, 2012, 06:28 AM
Umm, that would take QUITE awhile :P
Perhaps you would be better off googling it? I find it a bit odd however that you would *use* a term and not know what it even meant :S

I'm using it as a stand in. Exotic energy, as far as I know, isn't really...real. I got that term from the idea of exotic particles. It would be more of a soft sci fi thing in that case. If we use exotic particles, which would be particles with slightly more mass than neutrinos but still extremely smaller than electrons, would be cast off the artifact. Just as cosmic rays colliding with Earth's atmosphere produces secondary particles, other neutrinos such as mou neutrinos, these exotic particles (or a variation of known particles) may interact with the atoms and molecular structure of certain objects and/or their users to form unique properties.

The Purple Goo could possibly contain particles that inhibit these properties and cause its effect to stop. Maybe it affects others via some form of radiation? And the goo stops the radiation (Thus converting the weird radiation into forms of radiation that we know about such as visible light and heat).

But this would still not qualify as a hard sci fi explanation since there's a lot of unknowns and guess work here. But it is a nice sci fi explanation using science.


Ummm....................
If something can be done, does our understanding or lack thereof determine weather it can be done at all?
I don't know what you are talking about.



This is sorta useless without you knowing what Akashic fields are, at least conceptually.
To be honest, I didn't care to know. I just liked the idea. Given what WP found, I'd go with exotic particles/energy instead or else we would go right into fantasy or really soft sci fi. WH13 does seem like it skirts on fantasy a lot so...



Call what you want, *IF* W13 has used the idea of Akashic field theory to create "artifacts", then it's perfectly reasonable within that environment to expect artifacts to follow those rules is it not?
It's not like I'm asking you to believe in them is it?!? :P
The only issue I would have with explicitly using this would be that it is not scientific. I mean, if you want to keep WH13 as a sci fi.

WingedPegasus
July 30th, 2012, 07:35 AM
Seems to be enough for a basic idea, I would expect people on a sci-fi forum to look at that and say "so you mean the force?" :lol:



Call what you want, *IF* W13 has used the idea of Akashic field theory to create "artifacts", then it's perfectly reasonable within that environment to expect artifacts to follow those rules is it not?
It's not like I'm asking you to believe in them is it?!? :P

LOL indeed!! :P

I honestly wasn't sure for a second there because you seemed so serious. :P My apologies!

Gatefan1976
July 30th, 2012, 10:49 AM
I'm using it as a stand in. Exotic energy, as far as I know, isn't really...real. I got that term from the idea of exotic particles. It would be more of a soft sci fi thing in that case. If we use exotic particles, which would be particles with slightly more mass than neutrinos but still extremely smaller than electrons, would be cast off the artifact. Just as cosmic rays colliding with Earth's atmosphere produces secondary particles, other neutrinos such as mou neutrinos, these exotic particles (or a variation of known particles) may interact with the atoms and molecular structure of certain objects and/or their users to form unique properties.

As far as I know, Artifacts aren't really "real" either.



The Purple Goo could possibly contain particles that inhibit these properties and cause its effect to stop. Maybe it affects others via some form of radiation? And the goo stops the radiation (Thus converting the weird radiation into forms of radiation that we know about such as visible light and heat).

If you wanted to use the Akashic field idea, the goo would be more like removing a physical representation of a thought/idea from the Akashic field, with the same results.


But this would still not qualify as a hard sci fi explanation since there's a lot of unknowns and guess work here. But it is a nice sci fi explanation using science.


I don't know what you are talking about.

Clarkes 3 laws, specifically the 3rd one. For a more "visual" example, think of the TNG episode "the Traveller" and where they end up and what happens to them.



To be honest, I didn't care to know. I just liked the idea. Given what WP found, I'd go with exotic particles/energy instead or else we would go right into fantasy or really soft sci fi. WH13 does seem like it skirts on fantasy a lot so...

It does.



The only issue I would have with explicitly using this would be that it is not scientific. I mean, if you want to keep WH13 as a sci fi.
I thought we were talking about how arifacts got made, not weather or not W13 was Scifi or not.

DemosCat
July 30th, 2012, 02:33 PM
How are artifacts made? Entirely by accident. :)

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or rhythm to why a given object handled by, say, Mahatma Gandhi, becomes an artifact, and not another does not.

What about Mahatma Gandhi's spinning wheel? Shouldn't that be an artifact? I would have thought his spinning wheel to be a more likely artifact than a piece of cloth made from the wheel.

Gatefan1976
July 30th, 2012, 09:57 PM
How are artifacts made? Entirely by accident. :)

There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or rhythm to why a given object handled by, say, Mahatma Gandhi, becomes an artifact, and not another does not.

What about Mahatma Gandhi's spinning wheel? Shouldn't that be an artifact? I would have thought his spinning wheel to be a more likely artifact than a piece of cloth made from the wheel.

Err, I always found there there was a reasonable explanation why "X object" became an artifact any Y did not, especially if they are using Akashic field theory to "explain" thier creation. Artifacts seem to be a physical representation of a particular thought/ability/ or information and as such act as a focal point for said Thought/Ability or information.

DemosCat
July 31st, 2012, 08:06 AM
Artifacts seem to be a physical representation of a particular thought/ability/ or information and as such act as a focal point for said Thought/Ability or information.

But it's not really consistent, is it? If I understand you correctly (no bets there), then a tool, which is a means to an end, might not become an artifact, but the end-product could. So Mahatma Gandhi's spinning wheel is a tool, and cloth the end-product which gets the special artifact powers.

But that wouldn't explain Edgar Allan Poe's pen becoming an artifact (or part of one). One might assume Poe's passion was for his work, not the tool used to record is work.

I suppose it comes down to how the imbuer of artifact power feels about the things in his/her life. If Gandhi only saw his spinning wheel as a means to an end, then it doesn't become an artifact. If Poe perceived his pen as having a life of its own - that the stories practically wrote themselves when he picked it up - then it can become an artifact.

I wonder what that says about Mark Twain and his typewriter? I'm waiting for that to be an artifact. :D

Gatefan1976
July 31st, 2012, 11:06 AM
But it's not really consistent, is it? If I understand you correctly (no bets there), then a tool, which is a means to an end, might not become an artifact, but the end-product could. So Mahatma Gandhi's spinning wheel is a tool, and cloth the end-product which gets the special artifact powers.

Weelllllll
I doubt Ghandi's spinning wheel or anything he made on it would become an artifact, if anything, perhaps his prayer mat might become an artifact.



But that wouldn't explain Edgar Allan Poe's pen becoming an artifact (or part of one). One might assume Poe's passion was for his work, not the tool used to record is work.

This is where it gets a bit more odd. *sometimes* arfifacts seem to be made on the "belief" of the original creator, *sometimes* they seem to be "imbued" for want of a better term by the "belief" of others.


I suppose it comes down to how the imbuer of artifact power feels about the things in his/her life. If Gandhi only saw his spinning wheel as a means to an end, then it doesn't become an artifact. If Poe perceived his pen as having a life of its own - that the stories practically wrote themselves when he picked it up - then it can become an artifact.

A fair enough observation, but there also seems to be some corrolation between the object in question, and what a person achieves with said object as well.

aretood2
July 31st, 2012, 01:33 PM
As far as I know, Artifacts aren't really "real" either.

In-universe?


If you wanted to use the Akashic field idea, the goo would be more like removing a physical representation of a thought/idea from the Akashic field, with the same results.

The thing about the goo is that it blocks the artifact's "magic" it does not remove it. As soon as it is free from the goo, the artifact becomes dangerous again. I am not sure how that would work with thought/idea thing.



I thought we were talking about how arifacts got made, not weather or not W13 was Scifi or not.
Not my fault, you were pushing me with the Akashic field thing. This was just a logical progression of the discussion.




But it's not really consistent, is it? If I understand you correctly (no bets there), then a tool, which is a means to an end, might not become an artifact, but the end-product could. So Mahatma Gandhi's spinning wheel is a tool, and cloth the end-product which gets the special artifact powers.

But that wouldn't explain Edgar Allan Poe's pen becoming an artifact (or part of one). One might assume Poe's passion was for his work, not the tool used to record is work.

I suppose it comes down to how the imbuer of artifact power feels about the things in his/her life. If Gandhi only saw his spinning wheel as a means to an end, then it doesn't become an artifact. If Poe perceived his pen as having a life of its own - that the stories practically wrote themselves when he picked it up - then it can become an artifact.

I wonder what that says about Mark Twain and his typewriter? I'm waiting for that to be an artifact. :D

I think there are several types of artifacts.


Self Made Artifacts

These artifacts get affected by exotic particles or what have you and end up causing the (in)famous event or helps the (in)famous individual do what he or she did.

History made Artifacts

The well known or not so well unknown event has such an impact that it creates an artifact related to it. Like the jar from that episode where people started to act like Zombies.

People Made Artifacts (not to be confused with Artificial Artifacts)

Edgar Allen Poe's pen, Gandhi's cloth, etc... Individuals, highly influential, are affected by the exotic particles or what have you and this allows them to embed odd properties into there everyday objects/tools/products thus making an artifact.

Artificial Artifacts

Related to people made artifacts but a little bit different. These artifacts are technological in some capacity. The creators at some point were affected by the exotic particles or magical fields or whatever and one or more of their creations become Artifacty.

Gatefan1976
July 31st, 2012, 01:51 PM
In-universe?

"In Universe", yes, they exist.


The thing about the goo is that it blocks the artifact's "magic" it does not remove it. As soon as it is free from the goo, the artifact becomes dangerous again. I am not sure how that would work with thought/idea thing.

In Akashic feild theory, all things are interconnected and artifacts would be a physical representation and locus point for a particular thought/idea. By giving something a "goo bath" you would remove it from the field, therefore removing it from this source of "power", rendering it inert. Once it is un-gooed however, it reconnects with the akashic field and has power once more. In essence, you goo something, you pull its batteries.



Not my fault, you were pushing me with the Akashic field thing. This was just a logical progression of the discussion.

How was I pushing you??

aretood2
July 31st, 2012, 02:01 PM
"In Universe", yes, they exist.

Okay, for a second there I thought you were going to propose some weird "It's all in their minds" explanation for the existence of Artifacts.



In Akashic feild theory, all things are interconnected and artifacts would be a physical representation and locus point for a particular thought/idea. By giving something a "goo bath" you would remove it from the field, therefore removing it from this source of "power", rendering it inert. Once it is un-gooed however, it reconnects with the akashic field and has power once more. In essence, you goo something, you pull its batteries.


I think I like the "Force did it" idea better. That would then make it more appropriate to say that, for example, McPherson and Wells got seduced by the dark side of the Force :cool:

Gatefan1976
July 31st, 2012, 02:49 PM
Okay, for a second there I thought you were going to propose some weird "It's all in their minds" explanation for the existence of Artifacts.


Nah dude, I was just running with your initial post and excerpt from TV tropes :)



I think I like the "Force did it" idea better. That would then make it more appropriate to say that, for example, McPherson and Wells got seduced by the dark side of the Force :cool:
Dunno if you need "the force" to explain human failing but sure :P
Another thought if you don't like the "oggity boogity" of Akashic field theory is the more "scientificly rooted" idea of Chaos theory, specifically "the butterfly effect" :)

DemosCat
August 2nd, 2012, 04:37 PM
Why don't we just call it the Oggity Boogity Field Theory? I'd like to know what happens when Oggity Boogity interacts with metallic Unobtainium.

Gatefan1976
August 4th, 2012, 12:50 AM
Why don't we just call it the Oggity Boogity Field Theory? I'd like to know what happens when Oggity Boogity interacts with metallic Unobtainium.

Dunno, what happens when you inject a matter/antimatter stream through a heisenburg compensator?
Will the warp feild destablize or will your Earl Gray come out hotter?

Gatefan1976
August 5th, 2012, 01:04 AM
How sadly amusing.

tomstone
August 5th, 2012, 03:23 PM
I think I like the Akashic field theory the best. Though I wonder about the name of that field. Isnt the Akashic record a record of our past, present and future? Then why is a magic field called Akashic?

DemosCat
August 6th, 2012, 02:22 PM
Will the warp feild destablize or will your Earl Gray come out hotter?

Only if you reverse the polarity.



(I had forgotten how far back "reverse the polarity" goes until recently, when I was watching an old Star Trek TOS episode. Mr. Spock gives the order "Reverse the polarity" and I nearly fell out of my chair laughing.)

Gatefan1976
August 7th, 2012, 02:57 AM
I think I like the Akashic field theory the best. Though I wonder about the name of that field. Isnt the Akashic record a record of our past, present and future? Then why is a magic field called Akashic?

Ahhh, sorry for the delay.
*In essence* the akashic records are indeed a record of "all time and space", yet it is defined as something that can be "tapped into" by those capable of doing so. It's not so much a "written peice of work" that can be understood and evaluated on that level, but more a "living peice of work" that constantly evolves as knowlege changes. To put it in "sci-fi" terms it would be sorta like a "warp field" in as much as it exists on a level that exists "parallel" to ours and via training or technology it can be accessed.
The "problem" here is that when you use the term "magic" 99.95% of the population are thinking "oggity-boogity" and think that saying "ah-la peanut butter sandwitches" makes a fireball that blows your enemy apart. :lol:

jelgate
August 21st, 2012, 09:35 AM
Last nights episode pretty much answered this question

Gatefan1976
August 21st, 2012, 07:52 PM
Last nights episode pretty much answered this question

I have to wait :(