Why do physicists claim the big bang ball was the size of a marble? How did they calculate that?

The claim is only of the part of the ball that became the Observable Universe,
current diameter 93 bn ly.
The rest of it, nobody knows.
The doubling rate of that is an educated guess, at the end of Inflation, around 10^(-32)s the size had changed from less-than-proton to about the size of a tennis ball.

Beyond ~6 inches, size is apt to be a detriment for both involved. I'd much rather be able to reliably insert up to the hilt. In doing so the pelvis rubs on her clitoris, and the majority of women typically orgasm most easily through clitoral stimulation.

Also, no unexpected cervix slamming.

Dude, if I were the weed smoking type, the idea of humping the universe would blow. my. mind.

(And I'll bet size would matter)

Gang bang and ovulation, the story of Life

I am gay btw.

The universe expanded from an infinitely small singularity to its current size, ergo at some point it was the size of any other thing you'd care to mention.

>it was the size of any other thing you'd care to mention.

The size of the universe in 10 minutes.

That doesn't even make sense.
baka senpai tbqh.

>I can restate them so that 1+1=17, how's that a valid math to you

it is valid, but why choose your convention when we have stablished a more intuitive one that everyone with a brain on this planet knows?

But it is intuitive

1 + 1 = 17 implies that there are 15 dark numbers that we just cannot observe yet.

t. Theoretical Physicist

It wasn't the size of a marble, it originated as smaller than an atom to larger than a galaxy in less than a fraction of a second.

That makes no sense.

Of course makes no sense. Some science deals in areas that are so far removed from everyday experience they seem imposable. Our brains were optimized over the past 200000 years to case animals with pointed sticks.

It is based on the properties of fundemental particles. Every particle occupies a certain amount of space. Most things however have much more space between the particles than the particles occupy themselves.

For example neutron stars. They only thing preventing them from becoming black holes is the lack of mass to pull the neutrons so tightly together that they break down into electrons, protons, quarks etc.

I want to preface this by saying i am completely unfamiliar with the particular physics or mathematics of the big bang theory.

But from experience in astrophysics my best assumption would be that they calculated the inward forces of gravity and compared to the outward forces of electromagnetics and the particles occupying space. Similar to the Schwarzschild radius.

because scientists back then used a different metric system and had really big marbles

Can you find one example of any physicist actually saying this? I don't believe I've ever heard that claim.

And come to think of it, making a bullshit claim as though it's a common belief and asking Veeky Forums to explain it would be a great way to start stupid arguments.

kek

To be fair, if I put a marble in a box, and then another marble, and dumped 17 marbles out, "There were a bunch of marbles already in the box that I missed" would be a pretty good hypothesis.

If you add 1 and 1 and get 3, it's much better to assume that you missed a 1 somewhere than to assume that all of arithmetic is wrong.

It's just a theory.
I wouldn't worry too much about it

Kek

If size was irrelevant why does space folds?

[math]My Sides[/math]

If you removed all the space between the atoms, the earth would be the size of a marble.

there's very little evidence to support the big bang

it's a stupid meme

Also foreplay, dont forget foreplay. Literally my saving grace