The Science of Twilight

General Discussion on the Twilight Universe

Moderators: December, bac, Bronze Haired Girl, cullengirl

Forum rules
Click for Forum Rules
Finding Stuff in Billy's Trunk
Posts: 3586
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:27 pm
Location: Swimming in a sea of books, books and more books

Re: The Science of Twilight

Post by navarre »

I am sure that this has been covered at some point in this thread - way back when, but I have wondered something.

When a vampire sires/creates a newborn, I have wondered since the DNA of the human is virtually obliterated; going from 23 chromosomes to 25 chromosomes, that the newborn becomes part of the vampiric bloodline of his/her sire. Much like a parent to a child in conception.

In Kyrie's story about Sir Thomas of Surrey, his sire Sibylla(sorry Kyrie, I can never remember how to spell her name) called Sir Thomas her progeny which is an offspring. It is interesting to me in that when Edward told Charlie "Carlisle is a grandfather, too" that it could be true in this vampiric sense.

I just thought it was interesting to think about and maybe discuss.

Oh My God!!!! I am so sorry - I just realized that I posted in the guy's thread. Since I do not know how to move this to another thread....

Oh well, if Pharm4 can invade the ladies thread for a moment - will you gentlemen forgive this lady for invading yours? It won't happen again.

MOD EDIT: I transfered the post where it belonged. ~Nena
Paranormal/Romance/Adventure Addict
Wandering Through Town
Posts: 45
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 7:32 pm
Location: with Edward

Re: The Science of Twilight

Post by AnnetteandEdward »

Spiritus, you are a killjoy!

If I wanted to read a science book I would - but I wanted to read a romantic novel about a perfect looking vampire that smells good and acts like a gentleman. I don't know why you would even be reading Twilight - but maybe you were looking for a little romance in your sterile world. Sorry you didn't find it but don't pick on those of us who can use our imagination to enjoy a terrific series.

Hope you find what you are looking for but I hope you don't try to find it here - we are fans and we protect our own and that's Twilight - like it or not.
Finding Stuff in Billy's Trunk
Posts: 3586
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:27 pm
Location: Swimming in a sea of books, books and more books

Re: The Science of Twilight

Post by navarre »

Troll, thy name is Spiritus.

I have never seen such wasteful crap as that proboard. People so full of hate & venom all over a fictional series.
A series that an author has every right to create in any form she so chooses.

That's what fictional and fantasy is all about.

Ringsraith gave the best response and definitions for you, Spiritus, maybe you should review.

It's quite easy and for individuals like you - the K.I.S.S. method is always best.

Now, Back to your bridge you evil Troll! You have no powers here.
Paranormal/Romance/Adventure Addict
Part of Carlisle's Clan
Posts: 2143
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2008 2:24 am

Re: The Science of Twilight

Post by Sydflower »

Last night.. at about 12:30 a.m... I was supposed to be asleep. But instead I was writing Spiritus a nice message.. but Naureen talked me out of it. Well, Im tired of suppressing the urge to do so.

So, I may not be as infuriated as I was last night, but Im still mad. Troll.

I honestly cannot believe you spent time to sit in front of your computer and bash a fictional book. You posted a link to a website that doesn't even read into the books.. they just skim the surface. In order to grasp the emotional concept of something, you must have a brain and think about it. The Twilight Saga is not a science reference book, we are not looking for facts. Blood does not need nutrients, they are VAMPIRES and therefore have different bodily systems and dont need the same things we do.. the baby is half vampire! So, it can drink blood and not need nutrients. 'Isabella' is not a muggle.. this is not Harry Potter. So, while you're being all scientific, get your books right.

I could say MUCH more.. this is a fraction of the message I typed last night.. but just take your hating self somewhere else.
Settled in Forks
Posts: 4
Joined: Fri Feb 20, 2009 12:55 am

Re: The Science of Twilight

Post by Spiritus »

Did I have a hallucinatory moment and enter the wrong thread? I could have sworn that the first post on this thread was something along the lines of "discuss the science behind the Twilight universe". From there people began giving explanations on the Renesmee-chromosome issue. So forgive me if I somehow missed the intent of the thread, but my impression was that this was a place to go to "discuss the science behind the Twilight universe".

I promise you, my intent was neither to troll, nor be a killjoy, and I apologize if I appeared as such. I had some things I wanted to discuss in regard to science of the Twilight universe. I attempted to present my points as thoroughly and evenly as possible, hoping that someone would discuss what those points contain, not attack their existence. I did everything in my power to keep my venom out of my post (and I will confess that I failed to do so in a few spots).

To address a few specific things people have said:

*I refer to her as a "muggle" because it's a term I've adapted to uses outside of Harry Potter. I use it when referring to normal humans who exist amongst otherwise supernatural humans/humanoids. I apologize if that confused anyone; it's common vocabulary in my circle, and I assumed others would be able to get it.

*debussygirl: I wholeheartedly apologize if I offended you with that statement. It was not meant as an attack on Mormonism. My intent was to make a humorous observation on how, despite the series being filled with holy values, such a massive plot point as Renesmee was inspired by a minion of Satan. I placed no barbs in that statement.

*ringswraith: You speculated that maybe I placed this post here because this is a forum for fans of the series. My response to this is a resounding "Exactly!" The average poster on these forums loves the series. I want people who know the series better than I do to debate my points. I want them to pull quotes from the text. I want to be proved wrong. That's the point of discussion: for someone to contest your points, and you contest back. It's one of my favorite things to do, and I was hoping to find it here. I'm not trying to ruin anyone's fun and I don't have too much free time. Discussion and debate are what I do for fun. It'd be the same as saying people who play video games or partake of leisure reading have too much free time.

Also, I posted a link to azrim's analysis because he made some point that I felt added to my own, but I did not want to lengthen my post needlessly when the information was already there. I have no intention of using his points as a cop-out for my own answers (unless the question is, in fact, explicitly answered there). If anyone can find the grace to actually discuss my points, my rebuttals will be all my own.

And yes, Buffy was mentioned in that thread. Your problem with it is also addressed. Arzim states that, as improbable as it was, it could be overlooked because of the element of magic. If Buffy was a "scientific vampire", arzim would have dismantled that as well.

*Syndflower: you attack me for criticizing a fictional book, yet there are dozens of sites devoted to singing the praises of and declaring the brilliance of this same book. If you're going to say that I'm wasting my time posting this stuff, examine how much time you spend saying it's wonderful. Is criticism evil? Should critics be lynched? No. I have as much right to voice complaints as you do to sing praise. (And yes, this is a vehement response; you were FAR more trollish than I was, so YOU can take YOUR hating somewhere else.)

*Everyone who stabs me with the "it's fiction/fantasy" sword: Yes, it is. That's why I want to retract my closing point about the shapeshifters: Meyer states that they are primarily magical. But she also tells us that her "vampires" (and yes, there is venom in those quotes; I'm a mythology nut and her calling them vampires irritates me to no end) are primarily scientific creatures. The sparkles, the hybrid, she explains these things and more by way of science, and at that point certain rules come into effect. If I wrote a story that had a dragon that was clearly a machine but told you that it was a flesh-and-blood creature, how far would one's belief need to be suspended to make that convincing? If Meyer had told you that the gravity on the Earth in her story was 100x stronger than our normal Earth gravity and explained it with increased core density and nothing else, and yet everything functioned the same, would you write it off as "it's a fictional book"? No. Gravity has specific, unbending rules that it adheres to. The same applies to her vampires. When she said they worked under scientific means, they became subject to scientific rules. If she had said they were magical creatures, I would have nothing to say. But she didn't, and so, here I am.

Again, my purpose is not to troll, bring people down, or spoil fun. My purpose is to do exactly what this thread commands us to: "discuss the science behind the Twilight universe". Does anyone here have it in them to do so when the opening of the discussion is a challenge, or does this only work when the purpose of the discussion is only to support the series? True fans/followers of anything welcome challenges. Those who demonize critics are those with the weakest faith. Please, demonstrate your love of the series to me and have a civil discussion.
Team Baobhan Sith: because if I'm gonna get bled dry, I think a rigorous dance and a good lay with a beautiful Scottish woman is a fair trade.
Resisting Temptation With Carlisle
Posts: 2723
Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 11:43 pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: The Science of Twilight

Post by Jadey »

Erm, the Twilight series are Fiction.
So Stephenie can do whatever she wants. Don't bash it!

She could make a worm mate with a lollypop and the result would be little baby racoons.
^ by ForJazz
"Theres a lot of like, feminist issues with the book. Like, 'Oh, she's so devoted to him' and well yeah, she's in love with him"
- Kristen Stewart
Settled in Forks
Posts: 17
Joined: Sun Feb 01, 2009 9:11 am

Re: The Science of Twilight

Post by jenmick2 »

Jadey wrote:
Erm, the Twilight series are Fiction.
So Stephenie can do whatever she wants. Don't bash it!

She could make a worm mate with a lollypop and the result would be little baby racoons.

Your intentions were obviously not to have a friendly conversation.
The one thing Spiritus, I cannot fathom is why are you reading the books if you hate/despise them so much. Seems ludicrous dont you think? Now based on what I have read of yours, I am guessing you are now going to go back to your site and word for word dissect my sentences and point out the misuse of words, grammar errors and my lack of editorial skills. You obviously got such a high rating score on your chapter run downs that you felt the need to come over here and collect a few new followers. I applaud you at your feeble attempt. By the many books have you written or will be writing? I am looking forward to their release date. I am only assuming with such criticism you do plan on writing your own books, right?
Finding Stuff in Billy's Trunk
Posts: 3586
Joined: Tue Sep 23, 2008 12:27 pm
Location: Swimming in a sea of books, books and more books

Re: The Science of Twilight

Post by navarre »


I invite you to visit and go to the tab "Breaking Dawn" click on it and go to the FAQ's.
There SM discusses her explanation of the science of Twilight. She is quick to explain that these characters, vampires, shape-shifters, hybrid babies DO NOT EXIST. But, for the sole purpose of explaining how all of this works in this saga here it goes..... She then launches into the conception of hybrid babies and how venom works in the physiology of the vampire, etc.

We, her fans, know these are fictional stories and we enjoy how she created this world of hers. We do not care about the real world and how it applies to the fictional world of Twilight. If we want a science class, we would read a science book debunking this saga and we would join the any of the boards.

We discuss how the "science" of this series works for story telling purposes. We enjoy the What ifs that these stories bring. I actually discussed in an earlier post about human DNA vs. Vampire DNA. It's all good fun and speculation. What bothers me is that YOU and others of your ilk take this too seriously in the other direction - accusing us of that which you are guilty of - being silly, over-sensitive so forth.

You say you did not mean to anger us - uh, yes you did. But I will speak for myself only, the others are fully capable of articulating themselves. I am irritated because I just want to enjoy the books as they are written. This is my escape from my otherwise intense life. In this Forum, we debate, laugh, poke fun at each other and have a great time with other fellow Twilight lovers.

If you want to set aside your prejudices and join the discussion of a fictional series and have a good time and maybe make some friends along the way, then do so. But I get the impression that is not your plan.
Either way, this forum is a wonderful place to come to talk with wonderful people who love the Twilight Universe.
Paranormal/Romance/Adventure Addict
Running with Leah 'cause she thinks I'm hawt
Posts: 4633
Joined: Fri Dec 12, 2008 2:46 pm

Re: The Science of Twilight

Post by ringswraith »


I decided against my initial, long, post, and will say this instead.

Spiritus, as someone already mentioned, there is an FAQ for Breaking Dawn on the author's website where she goes into some detail regarding the "spawn of the minion of Satan" you mentioned.

Speaking of which, I find it ironic that you bring religion into a supposedly scientific discussion.

You, clearly, are taking this whole "my vampires are scientific" quote too far. When Stephenie Meyer mentioned that, I believe it was in the spirit of "they are not as magical as the typical vampires of old." Twilight vampires do not turn into bats, or banks of mist. They do not charm lesser creatures (vermin) to do their bidding. They are not barred from entering an abode unless they are invited.

You also missed a point of my post: We don't know, with any certainty, the answers to your questions. Only Stephenie Meyer does. What we say here is pure speculation, since she hasn't specifically elaborated on any of these points. Nor do I see a need for her to do so- she is not a scientist. And you are clearly much more of a scientist than I am. What you need is a scientist just like yourself, who enjoys the saga, to discuss your concerns with. Personally, I find it pointless to do so. You say you want to be proved wrong. I'm telling you now- we can't. Not to your satisfaction, anyway.
Buying a Better Raincoat
Posts: 72
Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2009 4:38 pm

Re: The Science of Twilight

Post by Kyrie »

Spiritus wrote:My purpose is to do exactly what this thread commands us to: "discuss the science behind the Twilight universe".
For this thread to not be completely redundant, you need to already have accepted the basic premise of a world in which nigh-immortal, lovesick vampires sparkle like christmas tinsel in the sunlight before you try discussing any of the "science" behind Twilight. Yes, I used fancy quotation marks too, because - shockingly - it's not actual science, nowhere near it. This is in-universe theorycrafting, where one disregards facts and substitute them with the "scientific principles" established in the lore of the Twilight series. Why? Purely because we are amused by it. Of course, as is the nature of any in-universe lore discussion, we can only speculate until given explicit informatio by the only credible source - the author. If this hurts your Science-organ, just pretend it says "Lore" instead of "Science" in the thread title. Stephenie Meyer saying "my vampires are scientific, not magic" doesn't translate into "my vampires are real, and everything described in the books would really work".

What you're doing is cherrypicking certain elements of a fantasy story, and "debunking" them with your no doubt merciless and well-honed sense of rationalism. But at the same time, you neglect to consider that you're arguing against the technobabble-type "science" employed to stitch together a fictional universe where vampires are real. Vampires are - crushing as the imminent blow of realization must be for some - not real.

To draw a comparison, you might as well be presenting evidence for why it is scientifically impossible for Harry Potter's broomstick to fly, while disregarding the fact that both Harry Potter and his broomstick inhabit a fictional universe in which magic is real. I don't think many Harry Potter fans would bother arguing the point with you - if magic is real, why shouldn't broomsticks fly? Conversely; If vampires are real, why shouldn't they look like christmas tinsel in the sun?

About now, your Common Sense should be tingling*.
I hate to be the one to break it to you, but you're wasting our precious internet tube space by applying real-world rationale and scientific method to a few, hand-picked portions of a fantasy story. As demonstrated above, this is also why no one bothers taking up the argument - it's pointless to argue. Presumably, you already know this, thus making you a troll out to score some easy inches for your electronic phallus. If you, on the contrary, did not know; what can I say - always happy to help. \o

* So rare these days it's practically a superpower.
The Sword and the Cross - fanfic in progress.
Post Reply