Vera Rubin, Pioneering Astronomer Who Confirmed Existence of Dark Matter, Dies At 88 (www.cbc.ca) 162
Mikkeles quotes a report from CBC.ca: Vera Rubin, a pioneering astronomer who helped find powerful evidence of dark matter, has died, her son said Monday. She was 88. Vera Rubin found that galaxies don't quite rotate the way they were predicted, and that lent support to the theory that some other force was at work, namely dark matter. Rubin's scientific achievements earned her numerous awards and honors, including a National Medal of Science presented by then-president Bill Clinton in 1993 "for her pioneering research programs in observational cosmology." She also became the second female astronomer to be elected to the National Academy of Sciences.
An Amazing Human (Score:2)
Re: An Amazing Human (Score:1)
And yet there will be fewer posts on here than on the one about the do-nothing space princess.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: An Amazing Human (Score:4, Insightful)
It's kinda sad, especially since Seinfeld is not even funny. Even in the show named after him he was the least funny character.
Re: (Score:2)
so sorry for you.
Re: (Score:2)
Seinfeld himself is hilarious. However on his show he primarily played the straight man foil for the other characters to bounce their lunacy off.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kinda sad, especially since Seinfeld is not even funny. Even in the show named after him he was the least funny character.
Been that way forever. Gracie Allen was funnier than all hell, and George Burns was a hanger on, a drone who wasn't funny at all. Ray Romano from Everybody loves Raymond, was surrounded by hilarious people, and he was a depressing jerk.
Can I get a whoosh?
Re: (Score:2)
It's kinda sad, especially since Seinfeld is not even funny. Even in the show named after him he was the least funny character.
Been that way forever. Gracie Allen was funnier than all hell, and George Burns was a hanger on, a drone who wasn't funny at all. Ray Romano from Everybody loves Raymond, was surrounded by hilarious people, and he was a depressing jerk.
Can I get a whoosh?
No. Read the thread again and if you still don't understand, move on.
Re: (Score:2)
It's kinda sad, especially since Seinfeld is not even funny. Even in the show named after him he was the least funny character.
Been that way forever. Gracie Allen was funnier than all hell, and George Burns was a hanger on, a drone who wasn't funny at all. Ray Romano from Everybody loves Raymond, was surrounded by hilarious people, and he was a depressing jerk.
Can I get a whoosh?
No. Read the thread again and if you still don't understand, move on.
Some days. Perhaps you don't like Jerry Seinfeld. That's okay. A lot of people do however, so its a matter of taste. But to your point of him being the least funny character - yeah, he was. That's called being a straight man. Seinfeld played the straight man on the show, but he was behind everyone else's characters. As was George Burns. As was Ray Romano.
Straight man (or woman) is a staple of comedy, along with Stupid fat husband and hottie wife (think King of Queens) Or the only sensible person in the r
Re: (Score:2)
So often, the straight man is the person writing the lines for all of the "funny people"
Larry David was the one writing the funny lines. All Seinfeld did in that show was the lame stand up bits and being boring in general.
Re: (Score:2)
Whoosh!
Thank you very much!
Re: (Score:2)
Ultimately, Rubin's research into dark matter will lead to the invention of the hyperdrive, enabling interstellar travel.
Re: (Score:2)
So you're saying she's the real life Norma Cenva?
Re: (Score:2)
1) there is no proof of the existence of dark matter.
2) Carrie Fisher is A LOT more than just Princess Leia. Maybe do some research?
Not to take anything away from Vera Rubin, but this not a zero-sum game.
Re: (Score:2)
1) there is no proof of the existence of dark matter.
And the Bullet Cluster is...?
Re: (Score:2)
1) there is no proof of the existence of dark matter.
And the Bullet Cluster is...?
Sponsored by the NRA?
Re: (Score:2)
Sorry, it's not proof. It just shows there's something going on that we cannot explain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
None of what you said makes any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
1) there is no proof of the existence of dark matter.
There is something. You keep using the term dark matter. I do not think it means what you think it means.
Re: (Score:2)
A better response would be:
Dark matter is the proof of itself. You see we made up the phrase "dark matter" to describe a set of observations that appear to be repercussions of something we cannot directly (as of yet) observe. So the fact that it exists is a tautology, and is therefore impossible to argue with.
Re: (Score:2)
A better response would be:
Dark matter is the proof of itself. You see we made up the phrase "dark matter" to describe a set of observations that appear to be repercussions of something we cannot directly (as of yet) observe. So the fact that it exists is a tautology, and is therefore impossible to argue with.
But of course, we want to find out exactly what is going on with this "dark matter". We certainly know that there is something in the universe that doesn't quite jibe with our theories.
Re: (Score:2)
Damn right I want to know! I feel that there could be something groundbreaking in this line of inquiry, just waiting for us to figure it out. I get the feeling you do too.
Here is a link to something that should be considered. A bit disappointing in my opinion in one way, as it rules out many of the more exciting answers to the question of dark matter, but exciting in its own way. You may find this interesting: 153 galaxies with rotation speeds that can be inferred directly from their observable matter [case.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
And that is the arrogance of physicists.
We certainly know that there is something in the universe that doesn't quite jibe with our theories.
No. We certainly know that there is something in our theories that doesn't jibe with the universe.
Those two things are the same thing
Because a theory is just that. A falsifiable concept, tested against reality. If the reality does not agree with the theory, the theory is incorrect, and must be changed. If the theory does not agree with reality, the theory is incorrect, and must be changed.
Come on, you should know that. Otherwise it is just word smithing.
Re: (Score:2)
other than a bunch of unexplainable observations that indicate there is far more mass in the universe than we are able to see.
some sort of matter that is difficult to see.
as if it were "dark" or something.
i wonder what could we call such a thing while we set about trying to figure out what made us say "gee, that's odd" in the first place?
Re: (Score:2)
You should probably do some googling before trying to be cute. It would save you from looking like an ass.
Re: (Score:2)
And yet there will be fewer posts on here than on the one about the do-nothing space princess.
Carrie Fisher? I had to quit watching the news.
Not a word about someone I've never heard of before who has made more of an impact on mine and others way of thinking than some actress.
In the field of astronomy it's rare to be proven right while still alive - her findings "have been confirmed over the subsequent decades" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] she had that going for her.
I've never heard of her before, her observations or them being related to dark matter, just that there wasn't enough gravity in a
Re: An Amazing Human (Score:5, Informative)
And yet there will be fewer posts on here than on the one about the do-nothing space princess.
Carrie Fisher was an author, playwright and script and public speaker on bipolar disorder and substance abuse.
I love that cosmological stuff something fierce but none of it has an immediate impact on my daily life whereas I personally know about a dozen with bipolar & dozens more through them
Re: An Amazing Human (Score:4, Insightful)
As a rule people who see others responding to X and say, "Well what about Y?" don't give a shit about X or Y.
Re: (Score:1)
Did she lead some sort of rebel alliance? Did she take down the Empire? What were her accomplishments, if not those?
Re: (Score:2)
She found Billy Crystal too whiny, only to marry his friend with the mustache.
Re: (Score:1)
OOOh is this an example of an SJW? Someone who drags gender into everything?
Re: (Score:2)
Humanity has been seriously dragging its feet on curing aging. It's about time we got on that!
Aging is the cure for humanity.
Re: (Score:2)
there are more than a handful biologically immortal living things, where death, when it comes, almost always comes from an outside source unrelated to the passage of time.
several species of hydras, jellyfish, lobsters, planarian flatworms, several variety of turtle and tortoise, and certain bacteria, all do not age as we know it. upon examination they show little or no decrease in bodily function, organs indistinguishable from much younger individuals, like we associate with most other species as they get o
Dark Matter is a horrible kludge (Score:4, Informative)
"If I could have my pick, I would like to learn that Newton's laws must be modified in order to correctly describe gravitational interactions at large distances. That's more appealing than a universe filled with a new kind of sub-nuclear particle."
I have high hopes for this new theory that can account for the galaxy rotation problem ( and the emDrive ): http://physicsfromtheedge.blog... [blogspot.com]
Re: (Score:3)
MOND has long since been proven to be nonsense. It's an eve worse kludge, that explains only a few of the many distinct problems that are all solved by dark matter.
MOND is by far the less elegant solution than dark matter.
Re: Dark Matter is a horrible kludge (Score:5, Insightful)
Science disproves through experiment and fact. Those theories are being experimentally tested, data is being collected, and they are falsifiable. Both are well past the bar for requiring further investigation.
Shame on YOU.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
. When the above happens to a large group of scientists, they become a religion.
When that large group of scientists start perusing other scientists for having diverging theories, ideas, opinions, It becomes an inquisition.
It is ok for you to explain why EmDrive should not work or the mistakes made in EmDrive experiments that would compromise the results.
It is NOT OK
Re: (Score:1)
Saying a investigation is not valid is an investigation by it self. And it requires work and prof or at least debate.
But that's not the level we are talking about here.
Here we are talking about not even attributing the name "scientist" to some one who is investigating an alternative. Just because he has yet to prof his theory.
This is an insult to every one that as ever asked the question "how does this work?" or "Is this really the best explanation to the phenomenon?".
To be a sci
Re: Dark Matter is a horrible kludge (Score:1)
https://en.oxforddictionaries.... [oxforddictionaries.com]
https://en.oxforddictionaries.... [oxforddictionaries.com]
A theory is a set of ideas that the author is not sure of. When prof arrives, it becomes a Law. A claim is when ppl anounce a theory to the world as if it was a law but with no prof.
Ppl researching EMdrive do not claim it to be 100% as they say it. They are just saying "lets study it and test how far it goes".
On the other end you, without any prof, are trying to pass as a law th
Re: (Score:2)
Scientifically, a theory is a collection of related evidence, mathematical models, and ways of thinking about something. It is never actually proven. A Law is the next best thing to a proven theory, and some have had to be revised (conservation of energy and conservation of matter in the Twentieth Century), but not often.
The EM Drive, if it works as claimed, violates the Laws of Conservation of Momentum and Conservation of Matter and Energy. While these could conceivably be wrong, that would mean that
Re: (Score:2)
If the EM Drive works as stated, it violates those conservation laws. That's an objective, verifiable, fact. It has nothing to do with religious beliefs.
If those conservation laws are violated, it means the laws of physics vary significantly over space and time. That's also an objective, verifiable fact.
We've been bouncing microwaves around cavities for a long time, and we've never come up with something like this. Violations of physical theories that are accepted enough to be called "Laws" usually
Re: (Score:2)
The EM Drive is supposed to convert energy into momentum, without reaction mass. That means that it's possible to get more energy out of it than was put into it. Momentum is mass times velocity. A unit increment of momentum, given constant mass, means a unit increment of velocity. Kinetic energy is one-half mass times the square of the velocity, so if you double the energy input, and hence the momentum increase, you increase kinetic energy by a factor of four. If putting in N joules results in a 1 j
Re: (Score:2)
We've been bouncing microwaves around cavities for a long time, and we've never come up with something like this.
I would stay away from arguments like this. Turns out many of the answers to "difficult questions" are right under our noses, sometimes literally. For example. We've been working on fighting MRSA for a long time. So happens that bacteria in our noses and gut secrete anti-biotics that have thus far killed MRSA with a 100% success rate in rats.
Doing something for a long time is a pretty bad metric of useful experience or mastery of a subject. You need someone who thinks differently.
Re: (Score:2)
Momentum is mass times velocity
That is an over-simplification. Light has momentum yet has no mass.
Re: (Score:2)
What we have here is a classic example of the typical closed minded religion-susceptible person, who for some reason has no religion. They posses all of the flaws that come along with a narrow minded approach to reality, combined with immutable preconceived notions and a pathological inability to think logically.
Like a self proclaimed Christian that systematically kills people in direct contravention of the book they proclaim to hold in eternal esteem, this self proclaimed lover of science purports to know
Re: Dark Matter is a horrible kludge (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Either you are responding to the wrong person, or your reading comprehension is out of phase by 180 degrees. Adjust accordingly.
Confirmed Existence? (Score:5, Insightful)
When exactly did we confirm the existence of dark matter?
Re: Confirmed Existence? (Score:2)
Re:Confirmed Existence? (Score:5, Informative)
What are you, a dark matter denier? The science is settled - there's consensus! We should now be turning our attention to finding that dark matter.
Joking aside, Vera Rubin obviously did not confirm the existence of dark matter. That's a terrible headline. She discovered that current mass estimates of the universe could not account for the rotations of galaxies using current models.
Everything beyond that is just a hypotheses, as no hint of "dark matter" has been found. I have a hunch that nothing will continue to be found until scientists figure out that their mass estimates were way off, or that the models were horribly wrong. Scientific "truths" are always getting clobbered by "ridiculous" new ideas, so it could go either way on this, but I'm betting on our lack of understanding rather than an invisible particle making up most of the mass of the universe.
Re: (Score:3)
Space is big. Space is dark. Why the hubris that we can see everything with our current technology?
Re: (Score:1)
No dark matter is not just normal matter that isn't emitting light. It isn't absorbing light either. If 90% of the galaxy was just non-emitting normal mater you'd see it blocking the luminous modules as dust clouds and globules.
No model of modified gravity has been successful at explaining the evidence either.
This place has gone from being a place for nerds, to a place where everyone thinks they're allowed an opinion without actually looking at the evidence. It's tragic.
Re: (Score:2)
No dark matter is not just normal matter that isn't emitting light. It isn't absorbing light either. If 90% of the galaxy was just non-emitting normal mater you'd see it blocking the luminous modules as dust clouds and globules.
Um.
Things that absorb light also emit it, necessarily. Look up black body radiation sometime.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That is a very important distinction to make.
Re: (Score:2)
It does not participate in electromagnetic interactions THAT WE CAN CURRENTLY DETECT FROM MANY LIGHT YEARS AWAY. That is a very important distinction to make.
So is the distinction that it may not even be "matter" as we know it. Dark matter is a placeholder, an unfortunate name that many have taken to mean some dark goo that we can't see, but we're gonna find a shitload of it some day. And that's a critical distinction to be made.
Re: (Score:2)
It's something that has mass and doesn't interact electromagnetically. You know, kind of like a neutrino, except slower. We have observed it as such. What are you going to call it? What counts as finding it, considering we're never going to observe it using EM radiation? We can see the effects it has on spacetime.
Re: (Score:2)
As far as we can tell from a looooong way away.
It's like denying the front door exists after you've banged into it in the dark because you didn't bring a torch. It's there because you have run into it, you just don't have the equipment to see it just now.
Re: (Score:2)
Don't get mad at everyone for thinking dark matter is, well, dark, matter.
Isn't it funny that you yap at me about getting angry? While you might have just flung a lot of spit on your keyboard typing that reply. Chilaxe bro, Dark Matter is an unfortunate name, nothing more, nothing less. Maybe matter as we know it, probably not. And some times people just need reminded of that.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not completely true. There are possibilities for dark matter that absorb light but are compact enough that we don't routinely detect them. Primordial black holes and things like brown dwarfs were contenders for dark matter. Transit studies showed that there ARE a lot of brown dwarf type objects out there, but not enough to make up more than a fraction of the missing matter. Microlensing and other observations have put pretty good limits on the numbers and masses of black holes that can be wanderi
Re: (Score:2)
Nutshell: Blackholes that formed during the early Universe, allowing them to be much smaller because they did not have to form from a dying star. Think in the range of less than a Moon mass.
Re:Confirmed Existence? (Score:4, Informative)
You and I must have very different definitions of "hysteria". I was simply trying to clarify the current status of dark matter, so far as a layperson can understand it, as the headline seemed rather misleading. This is still "news for nerds", right? I'd hope we still value scientific accuracy in our science-based articles.
I certainly wasn't trying to denigrate Vera Rubin's contribution to science, the most notable of which was a pretty amazing discovery. Nor will her contribution to science be lessened if the dark matter theory ends up wrong. It was a brilliant observation that no one else made, and it sparked a fascinating line of investigation, to which no one can really will predict exactly what the results will be. In any case, its bound to turn some previously held theories on their heads.
And since you put "joke" in quotes, I'm sorry you didn't find it humorous. You can't please everyone, I guess.
Re: (Score:2)
I thought your original post was funny. Just ignore those with no sense of humor.
Re: (Score:2)
The act of framing it like the climate change denial situation then attempting to write it off as a "joke", shock-jock style, comes across that way, as well as the bits sowing seeds of doubt later.
There has been a massive amount of science denial on this site and it's got to the point where the most ridiculous joke you can think of on a scientific subject is somebody else's serious conspiracy theory.
Re: (Score:2)
p>There has been a massive amount of science denial on this site and it's got to the point where the most ridiculous joke you can think of on a scientific subject is somebody else's serious conspiracy theory.
Tea Candles, and perpetual motion, BooYeah!
All it takes is a trip to YouTube, search either phrase, and you end up in the kook section. People who won't believe actual science, but will latch on to any weird idea that some practical joker comes up with.
And they are here on Slashdot as well.
Re: (Score:2)
Dark matter is not a theory, afaik. It's a placeholder meaning that a theory is needed. Modified Newtonian Gravity is one of many theories trying to fill in the blanks, as an example so you see the difference. I think that's still an hypothesis at this point, just being a framework for free variables that can be tweaked to fit observation.
Still news for nerds, and as long as people correct people incorrectly, someone will jump your shit for it.
I've left at least one mistake so you can learn a bit, correct m
Re:Confirmed Existence? (Score:4, Informative)
MOND is one of the many theories that have tried and failed to explain all the anomalous results we have collected over the years. MOND is basically completely discredited at this point, and dark matter is the most simple and elegant theory we have to explain all the results we have.
Re: (Score:2)
MOND is one of the many theories that have tried and failed to explain all the anomalous results we have collected over the years. MOND is basically completely discredited at this point, and dark matter is the most simple and elegant theory we have to explain all the results we have.
Dark matter explains nothing because it is a placeholder that means there is something we don't understand going on. It's like a complicated formula with a box in the middle labeled "something cool happens here".
Re: (Score:2)
What's a "placeholder"? There's a lot of things we can't observe directly. By this line of reasoning, quarks and gluons are definitely "placeholders", since we're never going to observe an isolated quark or gluon.
There's nothing complicated about dark matter. It's matter that doesn't interact electromagnstically. We just don't know much about its other properties. You might be thinking that galactic rotation curves are complicated, but gravitational lensing isn't.
Re: (Score:2)
What's a "placeholder"? There's a lot of things we can't observe directly. By this line of reasoning, quarks and gluons are definitely "placeholders", since we're never going to observe an isolated quark or gluon.
A place holder. A placeholder is just that. They have been in use since we've done science, and are critical to advancing science. It's kind of like the old "Strange and mysterious are the ways of God" that bible people use when backed into a corner, but with one critical difference.
The bible people use their term as a way of squelching further argument or discussion. Science placeholders are used as noting that there is "something going on here that we don't understand" or know what it is, but instead of folding the tents and saying strange and mysterious are the ways of the universe, and stopping further research, the placeholder acknowledges the anomaly, and allows further research, and often the further research clarifies just what the placeholder is.
Observing directly is not a requirement for confirmation or denial of a placeholder. http://physics.stackexchange.c... [stackexchange.com] has a pretty good explanation. "Quarks" were indeed placeholders when first proposed in the mid 1960's. Further experiments have exposed things that act just like quarks were predicted to act. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] warning - headache inducing stuff.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not disagreeing with anything you said, but at what point does a placeholder turn into an observation? Quarks were a nice theoretical concept until deep inelastic scattering showed that there were three things in a baryon and two in a meson, so people started calling them observed and accepting their existence. One might consider dark matter as a nice theoretical concept to explain galactic rotation curves, and then we observed gravitational lensing. Why don't you consider this finding dark matter w
Re: (Score:2)
Your description applies 100% to MOND, with the added disclaimer that it doesn't get the correct results.
Re: (Score:2)
Dark Matter DOES explain things, BECAUSE it is a placeholder for something that is dark and matter, not luminous and not immaterial energy. You know, something that will cause gravitational effects but not interfere with photons.
So you adhere to the the "big friggin turd of Gawd almighty" theory?
Re: (Score:3)
Everything beyond that is just a hypotheses, as no hint of "dark matter" has been found.
I agree that "matter" is just a hypothesis, but you can't say no hint has been found. The observed gravitational effect is a huge hint.
The hypothesis may be wrong, but it's the best hypothesis going. And there is plenty of evidence that the phenomenon is real, whether the matter hypothesis is correct or not.
The Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org] is worth a read.
Logic Fail (Score:2)
By your same logic, it would be fine for someone to claim that an invisible entity sits in the clouds and hurls lighting down. Having an effect does not prove the cause, and Flat Earth should be all you need to study to see how massive amounts of Scientists got stuff wrong for centuries.
Science _should_ welcome skepticism, yet when it comes to certain topics skepticism is shunned by a surprising number of people. That makes it a Religion, not Science.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Someone recently did revise estimates of the number of galaxies by an order of magnitude.
http://phys.org/news/2016-10-universe-ten-galaxies-previously-thought.html
No, they didn't. You cannot read the popular summary written by someone who did not read the actual paper [arxiv.org] to understand what the finding was. What they found was ten times more galaxies that had been seen to date in the early Universe, due to the limitations of the data collection methods used thus far, but this matches the expected value that is predicted by current theoretical models!
The number of galaxies in the Universe declines with time, as their average mass increases due to processes of galactic co
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
When exactly did we confirm the existence of dark matter?
Duh, look it up, season 1 is on Netflix.
Re: (Score:2)
They are merely the best theories for the observations.
Galaxy spin (Score:3)
There is no experimental evidence for either dark matter or dark energy.
Someday, maybe. But not today.
We can measure the rotational velocity of galaxies by noting the red/blue shift of light from the opposite arms.
We can estimate the normal matter by looking at the brightness and estimating the number of stars.
When we do that, we find that galaxies rotate much faster than even the most optimistic estimates of their normal matter. They rotate so fast that they would literally fly apart if they only had mass from visible matter.
One hypothesis is that the extra mass comes from matter that we can't see. There's
Re: (Score:3)
I find the gravitational lensing that comes without detectable mass to be more convincing evidence, myself. Other theories of gravitational rotation can't explain the lensing. There's other evidence also.
Re: (Score:3)
This is not as cut and dried as you might think. The link below describes how there is a 1 to 1 relationship between observed matter in a galaxy and rotation speed. No mystical and mysterious dark matter is needed to determine the rotation speed.
Check out the link below:
Case Western Reserve University [case.edu]
Re: (Score:2)
So there's a galaxy without dark matter? Is this supposed to be a problem? It's probably interesting why it doesn't have significant dark matter, and a subject for study, but saying that this galaxy doesn't have dark matter is like saying there aren't any earthworms in my car. There are earthworms elsewhere in the neighborhood, and dark matter in other galaxies.
Re: (Score:2)
So you didn't read the link, or you didn't understand. Got it.
Observable matter in galaxies corresponds to spin rate when using near infrared to determine the observable matter in a galaxy. Not in just one galaxy, but in all 153 that were observed in this study.
Your earthworm analogy, a masterpiece of logic and pathos that will stand the test of ages, should be re-purposed to buttress a legitimate argument.
Re: (Score:2)
Guilty as charged of following Slashdot tradition. I replied to your summary.
The link goes to a not-entirely-coherent account of researchers who have observations that show that, in a large sample of spiral and irregular galaxies, the rotation curves are explained by non-dark matter. That part is clear, and the reporter seems to have not understood what else the scientists said. Since this is a new result, not yet published, we'll have to see how it holds up to examination. In cases where new observa
Re: Galaxy spin (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
There's no experimental evidence that stars exist, either. Have we ever made one in the lab? There's a whole lot of observational evidence, just as there's lots of observational evidence of dark matter.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Suppose you see a door opening. You can come back any time you like and see it opening and closing, so you can make detailed observations, and anyone you want can come and see it doing that. You examine the area carefully, and find that there are no people or machinery doing it. You measure the breeze and find the air to be very still. You observe the hinges and find that they do have friction, so the door couldn't be swinging indefinitely from an initial impulse. You observe the mass distribution of
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence is what we've got. Do you think protons are made up of three quarks? The evidence for that is pretty indirect. We had this neat quark theory, and we found that there are three things in a proton. AFAIK, there's not much more, if any, than that.
Remember seeing her on one of the space programs.. (Score:1)
New theory of gravity (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)