In a spiral galaxy, the ratio of dark-to-light matter is about a factor of ten. That's probably a good number for the ratio of our ignorance-to-knowledge. We're out of kindergarten, but only in about third grade.
Vera RubinRead
I think the question is, are there women and have there been women who want to do science and could be doing great science, but they never really got the opportunity?
Interpretation
The quote emphasizes the importance of providing opportunities to women in the field of science.
In this quote, Vera Rubin highlights the potential of women in science, questioning whether there are talented individuals who possess the capability to excel in scientific fields but have been denied the chance to pursue their passions and skills. Her statement underscores the barriers that have historically limited women's participation in science and the need for greater inclusivity to harness their contributions.
In practice
In a discussion about diversity in STEM fields.
In a spiral galaxy, the ratio of dark-to-light matter is about a factor of ten. That's probably a good number for the ratio of our ignorance-to-knowledge. We're out of kindergarten, but only in about third grade.
We need senators who have studied physics and representatives who understand ecology.
Nobody ever told us all matter radiated. We just assumed it did.
There was just nothing as interesting in my life as watching the stars every night.
I try to do my science in a moral way, and, I believe that, ideally, science should be looked upon as something that helps us understand our role in the universe.
I had the usual friends who pointed out constellations of stars. But it really was watching the stars. It was getting some sense of the motion of the earth. I found it a remarkable thing.
But like all power, there are those who want to keep it for themselves. The world's entire scientific and cultural heritage, published over centuries in books and journals, is increasingly being digitized and locked up by a handful of private corporations. Want to read the papers featuring the most famous results of the sciences? You'll need to send enormous amounts to publishers like Reed Elsevier.
Science, at bottom, is really anti-intellectual. It always distrusts pure reason, and demands the production of objective fact.
Imagine we could accelerate continuously at 1 g-what we're comfortable with on good old terra firma-to the midpoint of our voyage, and decelerate continuously at 1 g until we arrive at our destination. It would take a day to get to Mars, a week and a half to Pluto, a year to the Oort Cloud, and a few years to the nearest stars.
Perhaps most ridiculous of all is the suggestion that we 'keep' our radioactive garbage for the use of our descendants. This 'solution', I think, requires an immediate poll of the next 20,000 generations.
The trouble is that the hockey stick graph become an icon and deniers reckoned if they could smash the icon, the whole concept of global warming would be destroyed with it.
My expertise is the space program and what it should be in the future based on my experience of looking at the transitions that we've made between pre-Sputnik days and getting to the moon.
Subscribe for the occasional hand-picked quote. No noise.