Summations Only

That is not correct. There have been hundreds of experiments to measure and characterize the signatures of CMBR, all of which support the theory that it is a remnant of the big bang.It would be more accurate for you to say that whilst the claim is supported, you happen to disagree with it.

No, all points only to the observation that light is redshifted in a certain relation to the assumed cosmological distances. That is all. That distances are actually growing of themselves is an unsupported tall claim. Have you been there with a ruler to measure that? And how would you tell a chunk of space growing fast from another one with stunted growth?

"It wastes your time and annoys the pig."

I think you accidentally a word. Well, that's what the most current and best model shows. Pardon me for not just taking your word that our smartest scientists are dumbasses. The math works, and the observations are consistent with the model. That's all we can really expect at this point.

Predictably you are missing the point regarding the power of prediction in assessing the worth of a theory. BB theory doesn't just provide a post-hoc explanation of the CMBR in the way that you are seeking to do. The logical consequence of BB theory is that the CMBR both must exist and that it must have certain very specific characteristics.The reason that the Cosmic Microwave Background is deemed to be a verification of the Big Bang theory is because the theory exactly predicts (demands even) the observations that have subsequently been made. Have a look at this NASA page: NASA Link The fact is that verified predictions add considerable weight to a scientific theory and only a fool would deny this. This is because it is relatively easy to construct theories that explain and interpret known observations. But it is incredibly difficult to construct theories that predict, and lead to the discovery of, new evidence and which can thus be demonstrated as being in accordance with reality.So my question to those who want to insist that we adopt some alternative hypothesis is simple. What have you ever discovered? Not what have they concluded. But what have they actually discovered as a direct result of their theories and conclusions?And if the answer to that question is nothing I question whether what they are doing can accurately be called science at all.

Not knowing what the universe is expanding into in no way puts the evidence of expansion in doubt. The universe IS expanding. That is what evidence points to. The cosmic microwave background evidences the fact that the univese was once opaque to light, but then became transparent about 14 billion years ago in our frame of reference (the frame of reference in which the CMB was measured). The abundance of light elements (H, He, and Li) also supports a starting point for our universe in past. A universe with an infinite past would have long ago ran out of hydrogen to fuse and would be in entropy death.

No, since the nature of the claim is most fantastic and the explanation offered is the least plausible one, any proper science must have had all other possible explanations of the phenomenon thoroughly exhausted before rushing into accepting such a proposition as gospel truth. The very opposite attitude is being observed. Cosmogonists clamour incessantly that it is indeed an echo of the baby universe and are markedly not interested in any other possibilities. That's circular striving to prove what is taken for granted already, so that's faith, not science.

That's just it, we have been measuring it with rulers. Our rulers are standard candles such as type Ia supernovae. These give us accurate distances to other galaxies. We find a correlation between redshift and distance as measured by these standard candles. We also see time dilation effects in distant supernovae. This can only occur if they are indeed moving away from us at high speed.Perhaps you should justify your denial. Afterall, shouldn't we expect to see a redshift if the universe is expanding? Shouldn't we expect to see time dilation effects in distant supernovae if the universe is expanding? Shouldn't we expect to see a cosmic microwave backgroud radiation with specific characteristics if the universe had a beginning from a dense area of energy? You discount this evidence only because it is inconvenient for your beliefs.

That is not correct. Let me repeat: "There have been hundreds of experiments to measure and characterize the signatures of CMBR, all of which support the theory that it is a remnant of the big bang."In contrast, neither I nor anyone else here is aware of any experiments which support any competing theory.This makes it the most plausible explanation, not the least plausible one.Have a look at the link which Straggler provided. In fact, look at his last post and his previous one. They set out precisely what it is that makes a scientific theory plausible.

The evidence makes it very plausible. Also, a static universe was the original cosmological model. The BB theory had a really tough time garnering support early in its life. However, as the evidence piled up it continued to support the BB theory and contradict a static universe.If you want to claim that the universe is static then you have to explain the evidence in terms of a static universe. First, there is Olber's Paradox. If the universe is infinite with infinite mass and energy then the night sky should be completely lit up by distant stars. It isn't. The night sky is quite dark. Why is that? You also need to explain why the universe has not reached entropy death. You need to explain why we observe a cosmic microwave background that exactly fits the predictions made by the BB theory. You need to explain why distant supernovae display time dilation effects. You need to explain the redshift.Instead, all I see is denial. You simply don't want the BB theory to be true, evidence be damned. That is simply not a rational way to approach reality.

No, that's a very poor argument since that is taking for granted that the process called the universe is a synchronous closed system that can run out of something all at once. That's logically impossible so is not the case. The Universe is nether closed nor open. Only what can be opened can be closed. You confuse the Universe with a window. That's a fallacy.

You have never heard of entropy? You are unaware that hydrogen fuses into heavier elements in stars? Nothing is being taken for granted. I am going with OBSERVATIONS. If the universe has an infinite past then there would be no energy available for work. None. That is what thermodynamics shows us. Evidence please.

The thread is about to go into summary mode, but I didn't want to let this go.It doesn't matter what I say the CMB is, the point is that radio telescopes can see it and when measured it has a quadrupole moment of a certain size.Any theory should be able to predict the size of its quadrupole moment, no matter what it says the CMB is.So forget about what physicists think and focusing on your own ideas, what is the predicted size of the quadrupole moment?

No, there is no such thing possible as infinite mass or anything. Infinity is not a quantity. It only means that you can neither finish nor start counting. In the case you do start counting you cannot finish the process. A better concept to reflect that would be finite but uncountable. So no problem with Olber's paradox which is a red herring anyway used to support the big bunk creationism

Dude. Please. This is embarassing. An open system is not open in the sense that windows are opened.