Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!rutgers!clyde!cbatt!ihnp4!ihlpa!lew
From: lew@ihlpa.UUCP (Lew Mammel, Jr.)
Newsgroups: sci.physics
Subject: Re: background radiation
Message-ID: <2309@ihlpa.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 17-Nov-86 11:00:42 EST
Article-I.D.: ihlpa.2309
Posted: Mon Nov 17 11:00:42 1986
Date-Received: Mon, 17-Nov-86 22:48:27 EST
References: <1388@trwrb.UUCP> <546@mcgill-vision.UUCP> <1167@cit-vax.Caltech.Edu> <3422@sdcrdcf.UUCP> <5397@brl-smoke.ARPA>
Organization: AT&T Bell Labs, Naperville, IL
Lines: 81

> In article <3422@sdcrdcf.UUCP> markb@sdcrdcf.UUCP (Mark Biggar) writes:
> >...  In fact, there is an
> >observed doppler shift in the background radiation as seen from earth.
> >This has been used to get a fairly good estimate of the real velocity
> >of the earth, sun, milky way, etc. with respect to the rest of the universe
> 
> This situation is pretty funny to the skeptic, which I am,
> having witnessed an incredible number of ideas representing
> "current consensus of the physics community" fade away
> into oblivion during the last 20 years:
> 
> 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).
> 
> 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 indicate absolute motion with
> respect to the cosmos.
> 
> This isn't physics, folks; it's religion.
> 
> I wonder what this week's fad is?  Bag confinement?
> Yin/Yang?  Number of the Beast?

Can we be quantitative here? This isn't a case of OOps, it's not isotropic
after all. It's a case of discovering a very subtle anisotopy on top of the
almost perfectly isotropic distribution. (I know, I'm not being quantitative.)

Did you know THE EARTH ISN'T ROUND!!! Spherical earth thinking is an outmoded
fad. In fact, it's not even an oblate spheroid!!! What shape will it be next
week, an icosahedron???? Geomorphology is a religion not a science!

	... such are Doug's ravings

Lew Mammel, Jr.


FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION
FILLER TO DEFEAT ARTICLE SUPPRESSION