Why do physicists claim the big bang ball was the size of a marble?

Why do mathematicians claim 1+1 is 2? How did they calculate that?
It could be 3, 4 or fucking 2145921.

who claims it was the size of a marble?

as I understand it, the big bang wasn't a sudden expansion of matter in space, it was an expension of space itself, so the universe was always the same "size", because you can't measure something outside of space.
Am I wrong?

>>8204716
but how do they know if it started as a marble, a grain of salt, an atom, smaller or even bigger

>>8204708
pretty sure they define it that way.

>>8204708
>>8204716
>>8204747
god you are all bloody stupid
or on a third level of irony i don't even know anymore

>>8204716
Correct. The concept of "size" doesn't really make sense in this regard, the expansion of space relative to current expansion had to have an infinitesimal starting point at the start of time or else the universe would've had an infinite amount of time to maximize entropy and have an homogeneous energy distribution.

>>8204708
>>8204747
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peano_axioms

>>8204769
I can restate them so that 1+1=17, how's that a valid math to you

>>ITT OP gets everyone to say size doesn't matter, unironically, and no one gets the joke.

Smooth OP, 9/10.

>>8204706
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.

>>8204848
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.

>>8204865
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)

>>8204889
Gang bang and ovulation, the story of Life

>>8204863
I am gay btw.

>>8204706
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.

>>8204955

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

The size of the universe in 10 minutes.

>>8204955
That doesn't even make sense.
baka senpai tbqh.

>>8204836
>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?

>>8205169
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.

>>8205212
That makes no sense.

>>8205214
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

>>8204706
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 /sci/ to explain it would be a great way to start stupid arguments.

>>8205178
kek

>>8205178
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.

>>8204706
It's just a theory.
I wouldn't worry too much about it

>>8205178
Kek

>>8204764
If size was irrelevant why does space folds?

File: received_1708717516057928.jpg (5KB, 171x208px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 171x208px

>>8205178
[math]My Sides[/math]

>>8204706

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

>>8204706
there's very little evidence to support the big bang

it's a stupid meme

>>8204865
Also foreplay, dont forget foreplay. Literally my saving grace