Gizmodo 
Enter your username and password.
Tip your editors:
Editorial Director:
Brian Lam | | Twitter
Editor:
Jason Chen
| AIM | Twitter
Features Editor:
Wilson Rothman
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editors:
Jesus Diaz
| AIM | Twitter
Mark Wilson, Reviews
| AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Matt Buchanan
| AIM | Twitter
Adam Frucci
| Twitter
Sean Fallon
| Twitter
Jack Loftus
| Twitter
John Herrman
| Twitter
Dan Nosowitz
Chris Mascari
Kat Hannaford
| Twitter
Rosa Golijan
| Twitter
Chris Jacob
Columnist:
Brendan I. Koerner
Interns:
Don Nguyen
Kyle VanHemert
Comment Account Questions:
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
12/17/09
400 degree ice?
Is it possible the planet is so massive that it's gravity creates a high enough pressure to keep water frozen at 400 degrees? If not, then surely there are areas that enjoy some moderate climate between freezing and 400 degrees, no?
12/17/09
In the words of Dr. Ian Malcolm, "Life, finds a way".
12/17/09
12/17/09
You skipped two steps... xD
12/17/09
12/17/09
Yeah, I just went there.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
Geez, guys. Getting lazy, are we?
12/17/09
12/17/09
EDIT: Actually, I'm guessing that 3E8 m/s is the speed of light(don't feel like looking it up either)? If so then it'd be impossible, but assuming he's going really, really close to that, it'd take approximately 0 seconds from Costner's reference frame but 40 years from that of earth.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
If you want the math behind this:
actuallength = originallength * sqrt(1- v^2/c^2)
in this case v = c therefore
actuallength = originallength * sqrt(1- c^2/c^2)
actuallength = originallength * sqrt(1-1)
actuallength = originallength * sqrt(0)
actuallength = originallength * 0
actuallength = 0 for all points along his path, both ahead and behind. Although, "ahead" and "behind" no longer have meaning because the entire universe has become a 2D plane for him.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
Deny their existance? Well no, but...
Yes, if you're wondering he pulled her out of that school the following day.
12/17/09
Christians (Well, Not only Christians) often deny that fossils mean anything.
I don't want to get into a religion debate here-I will just say believe whatever you want, and accept other peoples right to believe in whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anybody.
12/17/09
However, I do find it a bit odd that everyone here seems completely open to the idea that life exists on other planets without any proof whatsoever, but they find the idea of a God to be laughable.
12/17/09
12/17/09
Christians always deny their irrational beliefs and extremism when in mixed company. If you were standing in a room full of other born again xitans you'd all roll your eyes at the idea of fossils and scientific proofs. I know this first hand - I've seen it.
12/17/09
Why is it, that those that study, (or more acurately described as worship) the data they collect, view it as the ultimate source for knowledge (So far, remember science once believed that the earth was flat and the center of the universe); And then, in the same breath, acknowledge that there may be more intelligent life on another planet, and quip that the people who actually believe in a higher source of intelligence, would reject the possiblity of intelligent life exisiting elsware just because those scientists claim the rights to that information?
Truth is truth, regardless of it's origin. Get over your selves
12/17/09
12/17/09
But I don't think the adversary planted bones into the earth to trick us. And I don't talk to snakes... I'm not Harry Potter.
Now I'm thirsty.
12/17/09
I also don't believe in man-made global warming =O what now!?
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
What's that mean. It means there is no set time for the "creative days". They could have been millions, or billions of years. We don't know. We just believe that God guided the process, and put the animals in their place, preparing the Earth for humans to be able to live on it. Just giving you something else to think about, while your feeling sorry for us for being "indoctrinated".
P.S. My father was an atheist, and challenged my beliefs at least once a week, so I don't think I was brainwashed. He tolerated my religion cause it kept me out of trouble.
12/17/09
12/17/09
Now, beyond that. Your comment betrays a mistrust of science, and contains inaccurate or disingenuous arguments against it. The whole point of scientific thought is to continue to learn about the world (and universe) around us. If (as you say) "science" (and let's add here that "science" is not one monolithic thing, and that there are almost always disagreements on everything) once believed that the Earth was flat, well, "science" gathered facts, observed and learned. And as a consequence, very few people believe that today.
I think perhaps your issue is that you don't fully understand the scientific method, and/or that you have had some encounters with anti-religious zealots (who also probably don't understand the scientific method) who have affected your perception of what science is.
The fact is that science is not the enemy of religion. Science is something totally different, they don't even live in the same world. So the more narrow minded who live in that world may reject the religious world outright--and the more narrow minded in the religious world may do likewise. But we should all do our best to not be poisoned by these narrow minded individuals, and accept that as far as science is concerned, facts are facts (until superseded by new facts), and that as far as religion is concerned, faith is faith and is not something you can apply the scientific method to.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
Perhaps evolution itself could have been the very tool that God created for life to flourish.
It never fails to boggle my mind that people have to be so divided on this issue.
12/17/09
12/17/09
Remember, the theory of evolution can change (and has continued to change over the years, with new discoveries and theories), but the Bible doesn't. It was written some time ago and doesn't ever get "updated". Not to mention, there are parts of it that are certainly up to interpretation of the beholder, as well as possible erross in translation from the original Aramaic.
12/17/09
12/17/09
Evolution THROUGH intelligent design....
12/17/09
For the second half of my thought, I am genuinely curious about what will happen, I have no allegiance either way to the whole god debate, but as a philosophical exercise, this thought intrigues me.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/17/09
Existence of alien life in no way disproves the Christian Religion or the Bible specifically, or religion on the whole.
All of the passages regarding the creation of the Earth in the Bible could full well be metaphors. This is not an extreme interpretation either, this fits within a normal hermeneutical interpretation of the Bible. There is enough metaphor in the Bible to surmise that the chapters in Genesis regarding the first seven days are metaphor.
The Bible never directly or indirectly references life on other planets or what other planets are like, so why would their existence invalidate or validate scripture? The idea of man being made in the "image of God" has never been interpreted as a physical image by Biblical scholars, but as a spiritual image.
The image is one of having a personality, the ability to reason, a conscience, and a soul, not having two arms, two legs, a nose, a mouth and looking like a human.
12/17/09
My religious beliefs for a start, do not allow for God to be anything but a physical being and capable of utilizing the laws of the universe for his own intelligent purposes. Most of Christianity would call me a lunatic. But it is what I believe and I feel that I can logically explain it too. I also believe in the literal stories in the Bible but I do not hold it as the only source to understanding God. As I believe these stories, I believe that Noah was a Prophet and that he did build an Arc, but I do not believe that he gathered two of each of the 50,000+ different species of spiders that we have today. So, I believe in a form of evolution/natural progression. I do not believe that man came from ape-like beings though. Making the jump from single-celled organisims to intelligent life capable of making choices, regardless of however many steps in between and time is allowed, is rediculous. It would still be happening today all around us. but it is not.
My original response was to the overly dissmissive tone I felt your reply to njdevil had. Almost as if anything that christianity cannot explain gets dropped into the "must be one of Gods mysteries" category. While I admit that there are those who use this scapegoat to breeze over anything they cannot comprehend, it is not the opinion of the whole. There were at least half a dozen responses to the question of how Christianity would cope with the possibilty of life on other planets, when I started my post and I wanted it to be included in the same vein of discussion. I had to pick someone to reply to for that to happen. I picked yours. (Partly because of the star you have and I hoped my comment would gain a little more traction if I did so.)
I think at this point, it is safe to assume (I know, I know... ass u me) I think that we can agree that there are, on both sides, people willing to look at information regardless of its' origin, and at least consider it before forming an opinion. I know I am.
12/17/09
12/17/09
Check out the New Testament, John chapter 10 verse 16
This could be interpreted as an indirect reference to life elsewhere.
What do you think?
12/17/09
That passage refers to the Gentiles. I suppose hypothetically you could say that "Gentiles" includes alien life but this is not how anyone (including Jesus who is quoted in that text) has ever used the term before.
It certainly says nothing one way or the other regarding whether alien life actually exists, which I guess was really the main point I was making.
12/17/09
12/17/09
12/16/09
NO WAIT-
12/16/09
12/16/09
(sorry was lame but couldn't think of much better)
12/16/09
It's probably a mock up which was originally intended to have the sky inserted as the background but instead someone used a ground scene.
Look at the perspective as the missile sinks through where the ground should be. The worst example of how botched the footage is comes at 1:14 on the first video. The missile at this point has shrunk (presumably into the distance) yet we see it pass in front of objects we know to be at relatively close range.
12/16/09
12/16/09
Seriously, take a full-scale IQ test and when you utterly fail the POI portion please come back and retract your worthless comment.
Use the objects the missile passes in front of as a point of reference. There is no way the missile would appear that small compared to things farther away than it.
This isn't a matter of conspiracy, it's a matter of someone making a mock-up for demol purposes and someone else mistaking it for the real thing. Nothing nefarious, just poor fact checking.
12/16/09
IQ tests are shitty, and used very infrequently in actual psychometric evaluations, so stop trying to sound smart.
On-topic, you do realize this video is in slow-motion, right? And the sled is raised pretty high above the ground, giving the missiles a ways to drop and fan out to the sides? And that the missiles are very small in comparison to the sled?
There's nothing remotely questionable about these videos. Not that you've brought up, anyway.
12/16/09
I'm aware the missile is less than two feet long. The fact that this is slow motion has nothing to do with any of it. It's all a matter of geometry.
Do me a favor, estimate the distance from the camera to the launch sled's top edge and the horizontal distance from the base of the launch sled to the line of ground that passes just behind the top edge of the sled.
Work it out, even basic napkin math will do. You'll realize that the missile is shown to continue gliding, fading slowly into the distance after it should have made contact with the ground.
12/16/09
The moment the missile disappears behind the launch sled and falls out of sight it is passing across the straight red line. This line meets the ground at point B. The horizontal distance from the sled to this point we'll call XB.
If the missile has traveled less than XB horizontally then when it dips below the launch sled it disappears at point A, impacts out of frame, and all is well.
If the missile has traveled further than XB horizontally it should impact the visible portion of ground (point C) rather than disappearing behind the sled while still in flight.
The third option is that the missile has traveled more than XB horizontally and yet it still dips below the launch sled. This means it mysteriously fails to impact at point C and dips out of frame at point D.
Now, the missile shrinks to about a tenth it's size as it crosses the straight, red sight line. Similar triangles tells us that this means it is ten times farther away from the camera when it crosses this line than when it comes into frame.
So, look at your estimate for the distance from the camera to the launch sled and your distance from the launch sled to the point of ground just behind the top edge of the sled.
If the latter is less than nine times the former this means:
1) XB is less than the X distance the missile has traveled.
2) The missile is vanishing at D and, like I believe, failed to impact at point C when it should have.
3) QED. The footage is fake.
Of course this depends on your estimate of the distances from camera to sled and sled to point B, but again, if you have good spatial recognition/reasoning I think your answers will match mine.
12/16/09
Email Lockheed-Martin about this and post their response.
I look forward to the revision of your armchair-mathematics postulates when you get confirmation that the video is real.
12/16/09
12/16/09
They're not testing for ground deployment. The test is for a lighter missile to be carried in an air drone
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09
12/16/09