Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site brl-vgr.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!seismo!brl-tgr!brl-vgr!gwyn
From: gwyn@brl-vgr.ARPA (Doug Gwyn )
Newsgroups: net.physics,net.astro.expert
Subject: Re: still more cosmology (microwaves and stuff)
Message-ID: <2242@brl-vgr.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 21-May-84 15:38:11 EDT
Article-I.D.: brl-vgr.2242
Posted: Mon May 21 15:38:11 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 26-May-84 12:04:51 EDT
References: <300@utastro.UUCP>
Organization: Ballistics Research Lab
Lines: 15

It may well happen that a cosmologically uniform 2.7oK black-body
background is possible, although I would not attribute it to the
remnants of a big bang.  I suppose one could argue for privileged
local frames in a particular cosmology on the basis of asymmetry
of cosmological red-shifts for a fast-moving (locally) observer,
so the asymmetry of the background radiation would be a similar
situation.  Let me withdraw my objection to this particular idea.

The existence of a preferred local spatial frame (or family of frames)
does also imply a preferred local time frame (family of), namely
a time frame for which the background radiation is symmetric.  This
is not terribly upsetting so long as the preferred frame is different
for different points in cosmological space-time.  The "big bang" goes
even further in that it has an absolute time origin (singularity at
T=0).