Originally posted by Nibedicus
Well, chances are (as I liked the white paper to them) they'll be basing some of their comps on the white paper, or (at least cite reasons why they opted to contradict it) so it prolly won't. Again, we'll see.
They are welcome to connect a dynamometer up to a stump and pull off a horizontally applied force to contradict the results. Unless they do that, no, sorry, they cannot contradict the result if they wish to be correct. But this assumes you've even contacted anyone which I do not believe you actually have.
Originally posted by Nibedicus
Be it as it may, will post the calcs here anyway. And whatever comments they may have about your own math (whenever I get around to sending it). Whether you'd wish to accept it/scrutinize it/deny it/whatever. Is really up to you. Same goes for everyone else who comes upon it on the forums.Fair enough?
No, not fair enough. Short of doing the following: "connect a dynamometer up to a stump and pull off a horizontally applied force to contradict the results of a 1 meter diameter tree-stump", the results will not function in any contradictory way. In science, this is called results duplication or results contradiction (if the duplication effort shows a different result than the original).
The best they can come up with is a torque reduction due to the lever arm being 1 meter long.
But then there is the problem of the unknowns: the inertia of the tree (the additional force required to overcome the resting inertia of the tree), the frozen ground, and the short period of time at which Edward pushed the tree over (hint, faster=more force applied). The math from the white paper being applied to the situation (the tree push-over feat) is actually hugely underestimated.