outandbeyond,
I had never heard of this anisotropy until you posted it, so I am having to make quite a mental extension. I am not trying to discount the existence of the anisotropy; on the contrary, I would be quite shocked to find that that there is none. But I have never seriously considered any of its effects, being overwhelmed with the chore of learning different physical disciplines. I have somewhat of an understanding in physics, but I admit that I don't know much about cosmology or this CRB of which you speak. The intent of my questions was towards the empirical effects, not indirect theoretical predictions.
1) Assuming that the distribution shown in the ovular picture in some way indicate a spatial anisotropy in the frequency of the CBR (which seems to be the point of your post?), then one side of a physical object would be suscepted to a higher impulse than the other, and so, this would cause the object to accelerate towards the "redder" direction of this radiation until it finally (assymptotically) achieved a state is isotropy. Any anisotropy seems like it should induce an embalance in force. Of course, this is nowhere near conclusive, since the absolute intensity could vary independently of the frequency, not to mention that the object may in fact have a nontrivial response to the spectrum. I was wondering if anyone (NASA, USA, Stanford, ...) has experimentally targetted this question and observed, let's say, a tendency for, let's say, very light-weight objects to accelerate in the lab frame towards the "redder" CBR and away from the "bluer" CBR.
2) This question is to address the sub-issue brought up in my mind by the previous question. Perhaps aggregate objects are more proned to respond to the radiation slightly on the red side of 3 K than they would be to radiation slightly on the blue side. Of course, crustals with the appropriate lattice constant would meet this condition, but they are not perfectly isotropic, I'm thinking specifically about amorphous/vitreous isotropic compounds.
3) I didn't suspect galactic coordinates to be anything terribly complicated, or anything but analogous to lat. and lon. But the analogy does not explain them satisfactorially to me. Are they exactly the angular coordinates on the celestial sphere? How do these coordinates map the oval on the site that you have linked? The site mentions that the picture is "in galactic coordinates," yet I see no reference to coordinate surfaces or labeled points on the picture. And furthermore, if I have no reference, then this pictures serves as nothing more than a mathematical abstraction. I do not deny the physical significance of the picture, but I feel just a little gypped that neither the site, nor yourself, have given me a means to physically appreciate it. I suppose I could do my own search for the definition/physical significance, but I figured that, since you brought it up, you could do me the courtesy.