>>10913260All of the things you're saying are interpretations of data that are no more valid, empirically speaking, than what I have posted, however they are significantly less valid rationally speaking than what I have posted.
Your very first sentence, "there is no such thing as infinity" is a philosophical objection and isn't true, which negates everything else in your post. Cosmic wave background can exist in an infinite universe (and it does).
You are essentially choosing a priori to deny an infinite universe and then choosing to interpret data to fit that philosophical position despite the many logical and rational problems that it causes. There are far fewer problems or assumptions that is required if you accept the truth of infinite universe.
Tl;Dr you're an ideologue who doesn't know what he's talking about.
