Why do we consistently label CMB as the result of unobserved theoretical events rather than observed known causes?
Because you're answering only one question, and you're focusing on the wrong details to do it.
To draw an analogy, you walked outside, and saw the sidewalk was wet. You looked up into the sky and you saw grey clouds and said "Ah, I know what happened. It rained recently!"
Sure, that would be a good working theory. Totally conforms to all you know about the universe to date, plus your observations of it at present.
However, it doesn't really take into account the fact your dad is standing off to the side of your house watering plants with a hose.
The more observations you can take in about a more diverse selection of universal phenomenon, the better set of data you will have for finding fundamental mechanics.
Why do theorists throw Occam's Razor to the wind,
They don't. Your theory is focused on relative minutiae and a pretty egregious lack of understanding the data you're calling into question.
ignore the highly probably mundane source of these fields of lights,
Nobody is doing this, except for you. You're ignoring a pretty important piece of the puzzle, in that we can only see a certain distance into the cosmos before we hit the CMB. Because light travels at pretty well understood speeds in a vacuum, running the math gives a number like 10 or 15 billion years ago as being as far back as we can see.
One pretty simple explanation for this is that there wasn't anything to see before this point in time. Your "not-a-theory nor-an-explanation just-questions" posts has a big gaping hole in it regarding this.
If this isn't of interest to you or is something you don't feel is relevant, than we've discovered the source of your consternation, which is that you're ignoring observed phenomenon to... I dunno, I guess not put forth a pet theory and instead just be shouting to nobody on the internet about, well... nothing really.
and instead claim that a mysterious, unobserved metaphysical event,
mys·te·ri·ous: difficult or impossible to understand, explain, or identify.
Check. Nobody was there, and the one-off start of the universe seems like a pretty difficult to understand or explain event. I mean, you seem to think you're pretty smart, and you're having a hell of a time groking it.
un·ob·served: not observed.
Check. There was nothing in the universe around to observe it's beginning. Otherwise that'd be kinda silly.
met·a·phys·ics: the branch of philosophy that deals with the first principles of things, including abstract concepts such as being, knowing, substance, cause, identity, time, and space.
Checkity McCheck Face. Are you using a different dictionary than I am? When talking about possible causes of the CMB the thing we're discussing a mysterious, unobserved, and metaphysical phenomenon.
Seems okay to me to suggest an event of this type has happened. Or are you so bold as to believe there have never occurred in the universe any events that mysterious, unobserved, and about space and/or time?
transcending the laws of physics,
This is just a big head scratcher for me. Do you honestly know anything about how the expansion of the universe is presently understood by scientists?
The tool used to create the theory and suss out its meaningful parts was physics. There's no transcendence here broseph. Nobody created a brand new branch of mathematics that only applies to the big bang to explain it. Using /just/ physics, researchers have been able to construct a pretty cohesive picture of the evolution of our universe from the very first second that ever existed to the present day, at time slices ranging between planck time and billions of years.
caused the field of microwave light we observe?
Which brings us back to the analogy. You're looking for a cause of the field of microwave light that's different than the big bang because, well I guess you don't like the big bang or something?
To me, it sounds like you've watched a couple of documentaries, spent a lot of time not learning things in school because of how smart you felt you already were, and fixating on arbitrarily unimportant minutia.
Basically, you're asking us to abandon the theoretical framework of the big bang in an expanding universe.
The reason you're asking us to do this is because you had what you consider a neat idea about how a field of warm dust could also look like the CMB probably, if the universe was infinitely old and galaxies never died and what not.
You're suggesting you don't understand or believe the idea of universal expansion in favor of a static universe of relative speeds. When asked how your "definitely not a theory just asking questions man" explains the blackbody curve of the CMB, you respond with "What's that?"
Make no mistake sir, the only real arguing happening in this post is you fighting the specter of your own ignorance. You're just also kind enough to do it in public, in front of all of us, so we can have a good chuckle with our morning coffee.
Perhaps you should look into buying a domain name and post all your really well thought out theories and condemnations of established science.
Just hit me up with the URL when it's released. It's been a good long time since I've been to a decent crank website. :)