Strange

There is nowhere in space at 0K. And the early universe was much, much hotter.

Yes. It is a patent application. And therefore meaningless as evidence of anything.

Then it should be easy for you to provide the required evidence. Citation needed. Yep. Done that. You are still not making much sense.

Yes, because it is much more comfortable if everyone looks like you.

Please provide some (scientific) evidence. Not anecdotes. I did, the first time you linked to it. It is irrelevant without evidence it works. Then it should be easy for you to provide evidence.

In other words, all fermions ("matter particles").

Really? Citation needed.

I would need to see some evidence of that.

I'm not sure what you mean by "forced acceptance". It seems to be a paper on the way oxytocin affects people's attitudes.

Because it doesn't work, probably. Nobody.

He meant neither up nor down quarks. It is obvious from the context. It can be. Or a lepton. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction#Neutral-current_interaction https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/W_and_Z_bosons

All mesons and baryons consist of quarks.

Your proof is not correct because it includes things like multiplying and dividing by infinity. It could probably be reworked in terms of limits to come up with a valid proof.

I would guess that was the radio signals from the aurora - like static on a radio. Or it may have just been a sound effect added for dramatic effect.

... spherical cows ...

This is totally off topic. You should start a new thread. But no it hasn't been detected and isn't likely to be in the foreseeable future. The smaller a black hole is, the more likely it is and so the stronger the Hawking radiation is. For any black holes we know of the radiation will be pretty much zero. BTW the description in terms of virtual particle pairs is, as I understand it, just an analogy for what the math actually say. So it can't be taken too literally. Which probably makes most of the remaining questions moot.

It is a great article though.

You say that as if this question were settled. It isn't. It is still being debated. And that has always been argued about. Look at history of empire building from the earliest civilisations.

Oh, get over yourself. (And, no, it still wasn't me.)

We can't know how big the universe is because the part outside the observable universe is ... not observable. The Big Bang model describes a universe cooling from an early hot dense state. That doesn't say anything about size. Well, we can ignore it because it is not observable (which also means it can have no effect on us). The size of the observable universe (more like 49 billion light years, I think) is determined by how much time light has had to reach us. The rest is too far away for light to have reached us yet. I'm not sure what the problem is. There isn't really any evidence for "the Big Bang" as an event. All we can talk about is the earliest time our models take us back to. So we can't really say what was before that. But if the universe is [in]finite now then it was [in]finite then.

Eppur si muove. (See what I did there...)

Oh, grow up. (And, no, it wasn't me.)

Bingo. Are you going to say that "Some of my best friends are religious" next.

Maybe this discussion wouldn't keep going round in circles if you didn't keep saying that all religious people do this, all religious people do that.... I know. I know. You are going to say "I never said that." Of course not, you use the usual racist weasel words so you can deny you meant it. But the fact that you constantly refer to "religious people" and "they" implies you are tarring them all with the same brush. Imagine someone was to make negative comments about another majority by saying "black people do this..." "they do that..." And then turned round and said "but I'm not racist". Would you really believe them? So people who vote the same way as you are redundant? Or scientists who are religious are redundant? And what would you do about it?

Sometimes. But sometimes they will agree with you. (Just like non-religious people.)