Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!styx!twg-ap!amdahl!pyramid!decwrl!ucbvax!cartan!brahms!weemba
From: weemba@brahms (Matthew P Wiener)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: background radiation
Message-ID: <300@cartan.Berkeley.EDU>
Date: Sat, 15-Nov-86 09:34:34 EST
Article-I.D.: cartan.300
Posted: Sat Nov 15 09:34:34 1986
Date-Received: Sun, 16-Nov-86 01:55:05 EST
References: <1388@trwrb.UUCP> <546@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <1167@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <3422@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <5397@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Sender: daemon@cartan.Berkeley.EDU
Reply-To: weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P Wiener)
Organization: University of California, Berkeley
Lines: 18

Summary:

Expires:

Sender:

Followup-To:

Distribution:

Keywords:


In article <5397@brl-smoke.ARPA> gwyn@brl.arpa (Doug Gwyn) writes:

>The original interpretation of the "isotropic background black-body
>radiation" as being cosmic rather than local was largely due to its
>isotropic nature (so far as had been measured initially).

Largely?

I thought the closeness to theoretical expectations was rather important.

>Now that the phenomenon is taken for granted to be cosmic and not local,
>the anisotropy that newer measurements have turned up is taken to indi-
>cate absolute motion with respect to the cosmos.

Well, then, what do you interpret it as?  Somebody sending us a message?

ucbvax!brahms!weemba	Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
 "Do not believe astrophysical observations until confirmed by theory."