SEAN GREEN
‘Big Bang’ excitement fizzles .
i
This must have been a frustrat
ing week for George Smoot.
Smoot, an astrophysicist at
California’s Lawrence Berkeley Labo
ratory, said Thursday that he had found
the oldest remnants of the “Big Bang,”
the primeval explosion that is be
lieved to have created the universe 15
billion years ago.
With this discovery, Smoot may
have added his name to a very short
list of scientists who have changed
the way we think about the universe.
Some members of this exclusive
club include Copernicus, Galileo,
Kepler, Einstein and now, if his claims
arc correct, Smoot.
But to call a star cluster a star
cluster, the reaction to Smoot’s dis
covery seems to have been, in a non
word, underwhelming.
As a scientist finding what some
arc calling the “Holy Grail” of cos
mology, Smoot must be disappointed
by the lack of outcry that has accom
panied his discovery.
Galileo, for example, was told by
the Catholic Church he would have to
cither admit that he was wrong about
“that planet thing” or lose his golfing
privileges at Club Vatican.
Galileo’s was an environment a
scientist could work in. He faced bodily
injury at the hands of religious lead
crs who had nothing to fear but knowl
edge.
God forbid the great unwashed
should ever find out Rome was not
the center of the universe. Such knowl
edge would be bad public relations
for the Vatican, pure and simple.
So Galileo had something to work
for. True, he admitted he was wrong
and pul his blasphemous telescope in
storage, but his discoveries changed
the course of history.
For Smoot, things haven’t been as
challenging.
What Smoot found were slight
variations in background radiation
emitted by clouds of primeval dust,
the largest cloud spanning 10 billion
I ighl years, or two-th irds of the known
universe.
Allow me lo repeat myself: TWO
THIRDS OF THE ENTIRE FREAK
ING UNIVERSE.
These clouds arc the key lo under
standing how widely dispersed pri
mordial gases produced by the Big
Bang coalesced into stars and galax
ies and MTV.
They also lend credence to the
theory that the entire mass of the
universe, before the Big Bang, was
compressed i nto a sphere smal ler than
the period at the end of this sentence.
Had Smoot made this claim during
the height of the Roman Catholic
Church’s influence, he would have
These are two rather
contrasting theories
One puts humans at
the center of the
universe and the
other makes us look
more like the scum
left over after one
drains the bathtub,
been bonfire kindling by now.
But as far as 1 know, no one has
threatened to bum Smoot at the stake
for his heretical claims. He probably
hasn’t even received a death threat,
unless Jim Bakker has telephone privi
leges.
Twentieth Century America docs
not burn its heretics at the stake. It
ignores them.
Galileo faced ignorance, supersti
tion and fear for announcing his dis
coveries. Smoot faces all of those
things, but he also faces indifference.
Ted Koppcl’s “Nighllinc” Friday
night was about the implications of
Smoot’s monumental discovery.
Kopplc began die program by saying
“In the beginning ...”
Those who translate the Bible lit
erally still say God created the uni
verse and made Adam out of a lump
of clay in six days, Adam being the
masterpiece of God’s creation.
The Big Bang theory states that
the universe as we know it came
about in a millionth of a second and
man didn’t show up until most of the
fireworks wci'e over.
In other words, by the lime “Adam”
and “Eve” crashed the parly, the keg
was almost empty and the really good
looking women and men were gone.
These arc two rather contrasting
theories. One puts humans at the center
of the universe and the other makes us
look more like the scum left over
after one drains the bathtub.
Faced with such a spiritual crisis,
past generations have filled the streets
with rioters quoting the book of Reve
lations and tearing their hair out.
But Smoot's announcement didn’t
even make the lead story of most !
television newscasts. They didn’t have
footage.
The Big Bang theory isn’t exactly i
new. Scientists have been arguing I l
about it for years. But they have never I <
had this kind of evidence before. ! I
As physidfct Joel Primack of the i i
University of Califomia-Santa Cruz i
said, “It’s one of the major discover
ies of the century. In fact, it’s one of
the major discoveries of science.” '
And humanity’s response to this
news will be lukevtiarm, for a number
of reasons.
First of all, Americans have grown
accustomed to the advances of sci
ence.
We have made more technologi
cal advances in this century than have
been made in all the time before it.
Discoveries and innovations that would
have shaken the foundation of 15th
Century Europe don’t even hold our L
intcrcst for a weekend.
Another reason for the indiffer
ence is a presumed lack of practical
application. We believe the universe,
as a whole, has very little to do w ith
our everyday lives. The opening of
Euro Disney, on the other hand, af
fects us all.
On a deeper level, the depressing,
post-modernist types had it right when
they said humans have become cut
off from the bigger questions, the
purpose of existence.
They say, “God died in 1968, and
_l_ —. .La a »/\nl Iti tunc n D * nr j
)tan, ju uia) uv nivi v i van) ” w
Bang, bul it’s all part of a cold, un
feeling universe anyway, so who the
hell cares? By the way, have ya seen
my cigarettes?”
When a televangelist stands up on
his pulpit and promises a quick and
dirty end to the world with muchas
fire and brimstone for the guy who
borrowed your snowblower and didn’t
return it, people listen.
When a headline on page six of the
Omaha WorltkJtCTHtd says “Scien
tists Find Remnants to Support ‘Big
Bang,’ people say, “Well, gee, that
was swell of them. Is ‘Cheers’ on?”
There’s no point in getting preachy
about the lack of interest we show for
discoveries such as this. We don’t
even get loo excited about rain forest
depletion anymore.
Smoot probably will win a Nobel
Prize for his discovery, and might
have the primeval clouds named after
him.
But thanks to the downright rude
indifference of the American people,
he probably won’t be burned at the
slake.
tlrecn Is a senior news-editorial major
and a Daily \ebraskan senior reporter and
columnist.
‘Men’s movement’ attempt to halt progress
1 was both appalled and disgusted
to read Chris Halligan’s April 15
column “Feminism robs masculin
ity.” In his attempt to critique the
impact of the feminist movement on
society, Mr. Halligan mistakenly
indites what he perceives is the source
of the problem — women. This shal
low analysis results in three very poorly
constructed arguments against the
movement. The first argument is that
female empowerment “created a blind
cowardice disguised as strength that
allowed women to think selfishly,
many times without consideration of
the effects on other people involved
in the marriage.” My interpretation of
Mr. Halligan’s argument is that he’s
essentially blaming women for leav
ing abusive marriages because of the
emotional impact on the children.
This position is flawed for three rea
sons. The first reason is that it as
sumes that a woman’s primary social
role is to be a mother. I’m sorry Mr.
Halligan, but there arc a lot of women
who deserve to be considered more
than a pair of breasts and ovaries. The
second Haw is that he assumes that
women who want to escape abusive
• marriages arc selfish. This claim is
both absurd and also grounded in
selfishness. Finally, this argument fails
to account for the role of the husband
in a bad marriage. Mr. Halligan would
have us believe that casual reading of
Gloria Slcincm or Shulamilh Firestone
caused droves of American house
wives to abandon hearth and home to
follow the whimsical path of empow
erment. In Mr. Halligan’s worldview,
the poor, loving, hard-working bread
winners arc lell blameless for a disas
trous marriage.
The second argument Mr. Halli
gan advances is that the fcminisl
movement has resulted in a new
awareness of rape. I’m sorry, but 1
don’t quite see how this is an indict
ment of the feminist movement. On
the one hand, you praise the move
ment for calling our attention to the
horrors of rape. Yet, on the olhci
hand, you condemn the movemeni
for creating a situation in which women
abuse this awareness.
For example, you assert that “we
also have seen clear abuse on the pari
of women in dealing with situations
of these sorts.” Correct me if I’m
wrong, but what “clear abuse” arc
you referring to? I understand and
sympathize with the confusion thal
people must endure when defining
appropriate sexual behavior. How
ever, blaming women for this confu
sion is somewhat foolish. It’s like
blaming a victim for not wanting tc
be victimized further. Finally, I car ol
placing your destiny in the hands of a
woman you want to have sex with is
effectively mitigated by obtaining hci
consent.
Mr. Halligan’s final argument is
essentially a call to arms for all men
who want to regain the masculinity
that was robbed from them. Mr. Hal
ligan would have us return to a golden
lime when “men could depend on
women for complete support and
recognition of their malcncss.” All of
those bad, bad feminists have lost
their most potent power — “the in
herent male trust of females.” What
do you mean by masculinity? The
power to exploit sexually and eco
nomically? Should we return to the
lime in which recognition of malc
ncss meant subjugation? Don’t you
think that the inherent male trust of
females really means that men trust
women to be submissive? The call for
a men’s movement is a reactionary
impulse — an anachronism in an age
when the world is beginning to see
the dawn of freedom. Whenever a
social group faces the imminent loss
of its ability to dominate others, its
knee-jerk response is to conjure up
the demon of tradition to battle against
the forces of change. Just as we have
been victorious against three horse
men of the social apocalypse, so shall
the forces of reason prevail against
the darkness of gender oppression.
Cynthia S/.wapa
doctoral student
Gay section stereotypical
I would like to commend you on
he April 23 issue of Diversions —
‘Alternative Nightlife.” It contained
t lot of good information, and I
rnjoyed it very much. However,
;ome aspects troubled me.
I feel that the issue will rein
orce anti-gay feelings that some
eaders might have. After seeing
hecovcrof Diversions, some read
ers with anti-gay feelings most likely
humbed through the issue looking
tt the pictures, not bothering to
cad the articles.
The point was made that the
‘leather boy” or “drag queen” stere
otype might be seen in a gay bar,
out that it was not the norm. This
was contradicted by the photos,
which were very stereotypical in
nature. Most of the photos showed
either men in leather or men in
drag.
Also, the statement was made to
the effect that homosexuality is a
“chosen lifestyle.” Homosexuality
is no more a chosen lifestyle than
heterosexuality. You would have
to be crazy to choose to be gay in
our society.
Maybe a broader, more com
plete view of the gay community
can be presented in the future.
J.D. Row sc
junior
art
C American
Red Cross
^1SfG«WGfS ^ |j
“"SSS&SSWj
r n
f
I
I
17th & ‘N’ St.
No Appointments Necessary ■
476-9466 |
$600 Off !
Full Service Oil Change .
1. ©;
Now For $«1 Q95
Only I O (Reg S24 95) I
* We change oil, oil filter up to 5 quarts. |
* We lubricate the chassis.
*We check and fill: transmission fluid,
brake fluid, battery fluid, power steering |
fluid, and washer fluid.
* We check anti freeze, air filter, wiper
blades, tire pressure, vacuum Interior, |
and wash your windows. a
Best Service In
Just 10 Minutes
I Most brand, available I
| Expires 5-8-92 I
MorvFrf. <Uo 6 S.l 8 to 4 _ j
Southeast community college
Milford Campus, Rt. 2, Milford, NE 68405 - Interstate 1-80 exit 383
