Originally posted by BlightRussell kills him quickly. He was strong enough to have Eric Northman, Salome, and the rest of the Authority shitting their pants. He'd own any Cullen.
He's faster and can live in sunlight. The strength gap wouldn't be far enough that the fight wouldn't last until sunlight.
You're all idiots, the lot of you.
Edward's speed feats are stupid in the books. He is described as teleporting. He's not the fastest vampire, either.
And Edward says the vampires as thousands of times stronger than humans. He's in the 100+ ton class, going by old school measures. The tree feat, alone, puts him there.
Also, they are described, many times, throughout the books as being bullet proof: only once or twice in the movies.
Including the books makes Edward a much stronger foe than using the movie form. 🙂
And, in the books, he fights much much faster. When he fought Jasper, Bella described them, with her human eyes, as being a blur: that's old-school Quicksilver speeds. 🙂
Also, someone else mentioned that the books show Edward ran from Forks to Phoenix in less than a day. I would have to go read that portion again but it puts his speed at hypersonic if it was only a couple of hours. I did a measure, from the movies, that shows that it was just a few hours. Bella is talking to Edward, he's on the road in Oregon saying he's going to Phoenix. It's afternoon in Phoenix. By nighttime in Phoenix, Edward was already in Phoenix because he got out and ran.
Basically, the movies greatly underpower the Twivamps. Seriously, they removed some of the coolest portions from the Twilight books in the visual presentation in the films which was lame. They had to...13 year old girls do not care about superpowers.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Basically, the movies greatly underpower the Twivamps. Seriously, they removed some of the coolest portions from the Twilight books in the visual presentation in the films which was lame. They had to...13 year old girls do not care about superpowers.
The first movie had the James vs Edward fight. The book had Bella blacking out and having James being killed off-screen.
Your argument is invalid.
Besides, the books don't have the sheer amazingness that is Robbie Pattinson and his complete awesomeness.
Originally posted by ScreamPaste
Elephants.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Right, cause elephants are used to pull over very large, ALIVE, trees with ropes attached at the base, and they do it in a couple of seconds, right?😬
Here's your elephants, much much higher on the tree, on much smaller trees, with tiny roots, in comparison, pushing trees up in dry soil
http://videos.howstuffworks.com/discovery/28492-natural-born-winners-elephants-strength-video.htm
Originally posted by dadudemon
Vertically uprooting a similar tree (norway spruce)http://www.metla.fi/silvafennica/full/sf44/sf444681.pdf
They are using CRANES to uproot tree stumps of diameters of < or = 61 CM and the forces mentioned are between 400 kNm and 60kNm.
Keep in mind that these are STUMPS and some are split.
Here's the formula for vertical uprooting of TREE STUMPS:
FS = FH × LH × LS–1
Additionally, it indicates that it is much harder to laterally uproot the tree:
Given that trees have evolved to withstand lateral forces but not vertical ones, it seems likely that greater forces are required for lateral uprooting of stumps than for vertical uprooting. The studies reviewed in Biller and Baumgras (1987) corroborates this hypothesis, since at least five times more force is required for laterally uprooting 25 cm stumps compared to the mean values in this study. It seems, thus, that stumps should preferably be uprooted vertically to minimize force requirements.
So, about 5 times the force to laterally uproot the tree.
So, let's go with the lowest end showing: 60kNm.
multiply by 5, what is that?
350 kNm.
Granted, I should clarify that I was just referring to kilogram force, not torque.
Conclusion = Edward is very far into a 100 class category. hahahahaha. I win.
Originally posted by dadudemon
So, I used the diameter of the tree at about 1 meter (3 feet.) as seen here:Next, I used a density of about .72 (or 720, depending on how you prefer your volume).
Then I used the radius to measure it's volume based on a height of 25 (originally, I used 35 meters, but that's too tall, so I'll change it) meters, or about 80 feet.
You can get your answer to this, easily, by using the "cone" formula because it eventually tappers off into nothing, but it does NOT take into account the branches, which was still "water-under-the-bridge" at this point, because we just needed to show that the mass of the tree approaches 100 tons without getting into the petty forces required to tear the roots and uproot the tree at the same time.
So here is the volume:
6.54 m3
Just in case you don't believe that number, here is a quick calculator:
http://www.treeworld.info/treesurfaceareavolumecalculator.html
4708.8 Kg
Or 4.7 tonnes or about 5.2 tons. I added in about 5% more mass for the branches. So that's about 5.4 tons.
Since we have the actually torque required, there abouts, to uproot a tree horizontally, it's really a moot point: 5 times that amount used to vertically uproot and tree stumps of about the same size (radius of .61 meters all the way down to .32 meters) which is about 60 kNm. Horizontally is much harder so he's definitely several magnitudes of 100 ton lifter.
Let it be known throughout all of the MVF [and AVF] that Edward is definitely a 100+ class character.
Originally posted by dadudemon
The forces can be considered greater due to the way the horizontal pulls occur:1. They are actually at an angle and not directly horizontal to the stump.
a) This means that better leverage can occur with the tree.
2. The tree's mass has to be affected, as well, for the initial effort.
a) Because of that, the initial effort required is greater than horizontal tractor pull.
3. After the tree is moved, it becomes much easier due to several factors.
a) Loosening of the soil.
b) breaking of some of the roots.
c) The mass of the tree lending support to the felling of the tree due to the mass assisting with the help of gravity in breaking the roots and freeing itself from the soil.4. Their is an even bigger reason why his efforts are harder than the excavators: it is very cold and has been very cold in that area for a while and the ground would be frozen, making it much more difficult to break it free of the soil, not to mention the roots.
5. It takes the tractors and cranes much much longer to do their uprooting than it did Edward, meaning, he's applying much more force per unit time.
Trees are "designed" to resist falling over which is why the scientist said that, on average, 5 times as much effort has to be applied to the horizontal pulls compared to vertical ones.
"The forces can be considered greater due to the way the horizontal pulls occur:
1. They are actually at an angle and not directly horizontal to the stump.
a) This means that better leverage can occur with the tree.
2. The tree's mass has to be affected, as well, for the initial effort.
a) Because of that, the initial effort required is greater than horizontal tractor pull.
3. After the tree is moved, it becomes much easier due to several factors.
a) Loosening of the soil.
b) breaking of some of the roots.
c) The mass of the tree lending support to the felling of the tree due to the mass assisting with the help of gravity in breaking the roots and freeing itself from the soil.4. Their is an even bigger reason why his efforts are harder than the excavators: it is very cold and has been very cold in that area for a while and the ground would be frozen, making it much more difficult to break it free of the soil, not to mention the roots."
5. It takes the tractors and cranes much much longer to do their uprooting than it did Edward, meaning, he's applying much more force per unit time.
If you want to get as pedantic as possible about it, 4 feet = 1.22 meters.
Average vertical force required to uproot trees that have a smaller mass and are also not in frozen soil: 60kNm.
Required force for a semi-horizontal pull: 5 times greater for trees in that same diameter range.
Edward's tree falls into the top-end of that range.
5*60kNm = 300 kNm.
Solve for force in the lever formula:
300000 Nm = f*1.2192
f = 245901.64
245901.64 = 245.90 kNm
That still does not take into consideration that the ground is frozen, it takes much longer to pull up the stumps with the machines; and the mass of the tree makes it more difficult, initially, to move cause of a stupid little physics property known as "inertia".
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
The first movie had the James vs Edward fight.
Why are you making this point?
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
The book had Bella blacking out and having James being killed off-screen.
1. The book clearly shows Edward coming to her rescue.
2. How can James be killed off-screen when it is a book?
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Your argument is invalid.
If you actually made a coherent point that contradicted anything I said, you may have a point.
Originally posted by FinalAnswer
Besides, the books don't have the sheer amazingness that is Robbie Pattinson and his complete awesomeness.
You're gay?
Originally posted by AuraAngel
He took a plane to Phoenix in the books Dadudemon. If I recall correctly that is.
Maybe. I will have to go look it up. But it's too painful to run upstairs because my quads, gultes, and hams or friggin' sore from leg day.
Originally posted by dadudemon
Why are you making this point?
Why do I be?
1. The book clearly shows Edward coming to her rescue.
Edward came to her rescue....She promptly blacked out before she could see Edward's and James's fight.
2. How can James be killed off-screen when it is a book?
If you read it on an iPad, the fight will have been absent from your screen.
If you actually made a coherent point that contradicted anything I said, you may have a point.
I'll contradict your face.
You're gay?