[Dave Lev (OP)]

Dear Kryptid

The problem is that you are assuming that there was such a thing as "pre Big Bang space". If time started at the Big Bang, then there wasn't.

What about "if" not?
As you are using the word "if", then it is clear that you are not so sure about that "if".
So, it could be if - yes or if - not.
Do you agree that there is a chance that the time had started before the Big bang?

In any case, do you confirm that many of our scientists claim that the entire Universe is much bigger than the maximal size of the observable Universe?
Do you also confirm that the BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly?
What is the chance that the entire Universe is infinite or Multiverse?
I do recall that you have stated that if the Universe is infinite than it was already infinite before the bang.
As the entire Universe is clearly bigger than the Observable Universe, then don't you agree that this extra space was already there before the bang?
Therefore, why do you reject the idea that there was a "Pre Big bang Space" while the BBT can only cover the size of the observable Universe?

[Kryptid]

Do you agree that there is a chance that the time had started before the Big bang?

Yes. Whether it did or not doesn't mean that conservation of energy was violated. The only way that it would be violated would be if the total amount of energy changed over time. If it stayed the same over time, then there were no violations. The Big Bang does not require the energy to have been zero at any moment.

Do you also confirm that the BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly?

Wrong. At least some inflation models post that inflation is still happening in other regions of the Universe outside of the observable universe. If that's the case, then the total size of the Universe could be many, many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe.

What is the chance that the entire Universe is infinite or Multiverse?

Probably unknowable.

I do recall that you have stated that if the Universe is infinite than it was already infinite before the bang.

That was only one possibility. It isn't the only one.

As the entire Universe is clearly bigger than the Observable Universe, then don't you agree that this extra space was already there before the bang?

No.

the BBT can only cover the size of the observable Universe

Wrong.

Since you think gravity repels things, why haven't you floated off into space yet?

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 03:30:50
Do you also confirm that the BBT can only set a universe at the size of the observable Universe (92 BLy) while the minimal size of the entire universe is considered as 250 Bly?

Wrong. At least some inflation models post that inflation is still happening in other regions of the Universe outside of the observable universe. If that's the case, then the total size of the Universe could be many, many orders of magnitude larger than the observable universe.

Before we start any sort of explanation, would you kindly answer the following?
1. Do you confirm that the observable size of the universe had been set by BBT model?
2. Do you confirm that based on this model of the BBT, the maximal size of the Observable universe should be 92BY?
3. Do you also confirm that the size of the entire universe must be bigger than the observable Universe?

Please, Yes or no.

[Kryptid]

1. Do you confirm that the observable size of the universe had been set by BBT model?

It's the other way around. The Big Bang model has to conform to what we observe about the Universe.

2. Do you confirm that based on this model of the BBT, the maximal size of the Observable universe should be 92BY?

Again, you've got it backwards.

3. Do you also confirm that the size of the entire universe must be bigger than the observable Universe?

Probably, but we don't know how much bigger.

Since you think gravity repels things, why haven't you floated off into space yet?

[Bored chemist]

Before we start any sort of explanation, would you kindly answer the following?

I'm still waiting for you to explain why you kicked off this thread with something that's simply wrong.

The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age.

Though your idea that gravity pushes has more comedy value.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:10:14
1. Do you confirm that the observable size of the universe had been set by BBT model?

It's the other way around. The Big Bang model has to conform to what we observe about the Universe.

Is it real?
So, do you mean that each time that we observe a contradiction in the BBT theory, our scientists add some adaptation to the theory?
I do recall that few years ago our scientists have estimated that the maximal size of the Universe is about 13 Bly.
Than it was changed to the observable universe which is 92Bly.
Now you claim that they can fit it to 250 Bly and if needed to 1000 Bly or even to the Infinity.
Hence, any contradicted assumption of yesterday in the BBT can be fixed today to meet the new observation.
So, at any new discovery, you just add new patch to this theory.
Wow, it almost sounds as unbeatable theory.

Is it correct?
Is there any way to win/kick out the BBT?
What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?
Could it be that the mission of our scientists is to hold the BBT theory forever and ever and overcome any contradicted observation?

[Bored chemist]

So, do you mean that each time that we observe a contradiction in the BBT theory

Let us know when that happens.

It's interesting that you say "What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?"
Well, what would it take to get you to recognise that  your idea is a breach of the conservation of energy (just a quick reminder, the BBT isn't a breach of it) and that it doesn't make a universe that looks anything like this one and it requires that things fall up?
Do you not realise that any of those is proof that you are wrong?

[Kryptid]

So, do you mean that each time that we observe a contradiction in the BBT theory, our scientists add some adaptation to the theory?

That's how it works for pretty much all theories, yes. But if that can't be done, then it's time to look for a better theory.

I do recall that few years ago our scientists have estimated that the maximal size of the Universe is about 13 Bly.

Do you have a source for that?

Is there any way to win/kick out the BBT?
What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?

Yes. There are two things in particular I can think of. The discovery of black dwarfs and blue dwarfs would be evidence against the Big Bang theory. The Universe, as we currently understand it, is not old enough for either black dwarfs or blue dwarfs to yet exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_dwarf_(red-dwarf_stage)

If the Big Bang theory is wrong, discarding it will probably be neither a quick nor a simple process. Long standing models tend to undergo modification in an attempt to reconcile them with new observations. As those observations become increasingly difficult to account for, the consensus about the validity of the model will begin to break down. Then, when a new, better theory comes along that can explain the data better, then the consensus will begin to switch to the new theory.

But "Theory D" is not that better theory, in part because it claims that gravity pushes things apart (which is obviously wrong because I'm sitting right here comfortably on the Earth's surface).

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 17:59:32
Is there any way to win/kick out the BBT?
What kind of observation/discovery could convince you that the BBT is incorrect?

Yes. There are two things in particular I can think of. The discovery of black dwarfs and blue dwarfs would be evidence against the Big Bang theory. The Universe, as we currently understand it, is not old enough for either black dwarfs or blue dwarfs to yet exist: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_dwarf_(red-dwarf_stage)

NO
I disagree
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_dwarf
A black dwarf is a theoretical stellar remnant...
So, it is some sort of theoretical idea.
You can't use it to qualify or disqualify as long as you can't prove that it is there.
We must use a solid verification observation.
For example:
1. The Size of the Universe - Based on theory D the Universe is infinite. So if you can prove that the Universe is compact and finite, than this theory should be set in the garbage.
On the other hand, the BBT can only explain a compact universe. There must be a limit for the size that you can achieve in only 13.8 By. So if you had estimated that the maximal size of the Universe is 92By (and even called it observable Universe while it is clearly that we can't observe to that distance), then this range MUST be the maximal distance. If we discover that the Universe is bigger than that (The estimation for the minimal size of the entire Universe is 250 By) or especially if the Universe size is infinite, then its the time to set this theory in the garbage.
2. Expansion - Based on the BBT the expansion is due to space expansion and not due to galaxies expansion. Based on theory D it is the opposite. The expansion is due to the galaxies expansion while there is no expansion in the space at all.
So, with all the advanced technology, it is our obligation to find a way to measure if the expansion is due to space expansion or due to galaxies expansion. This is a key element in both theories.
I can give you full list of observations that each one by itself should kill theory D.
You have offered only one unproved theoretical idea against the BBT.
Sorry, this isn't science.
In real science you set the expectation from your theory and kill it if you find any sort of contradiction.
As you can't offer any sort of real observation that could kill the BBT, that theory is clearly based on none scientific verifications/evidences.

But "Theory D" is not that better theory, in part because it claims that gravity pushes things apart (which is obviously wrong because I'm sitting right here comfortably on the Earth's surface).

There is big difference in gravity between short distance and long distance while "long" and "short" are relative.
There is also the issue of the Circular orbital velocity which Newton had called it the "magic velocity"
I claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.
The idea that objects can fall in and increase their circular orbital velocity due to momentum or any other idea is a pure fiction.
If the BBT was real, we wouldn't find even a single circular orbital system in the whole Universe.
The gravity would pull the objects together (due to collision) or push them away. Nothing in between as orbital cycle.

However, with your permission, let's focus on the Key issues: What is needed to kill a Theory?

If the Big Bang theory is wrong, discarding it will probably be neither a quick nor a simple process.

The BBT is clearly wrong and it is very simple to kill any irrelevant theory
I'm ready to offer a full list of real observations that can kill theory D.
Please, would you kindly also offer real list of verifications that should kill the BBT.

[Kryptid]

A black dwarf is a theoretical stellar remnant...
So, it is some sort of theoretical idea.

Black dwarfs are an inevitable consequence of the laws of thermodynamics. White dwarf stars continually radiate energy in the form of light and heat into the Universe. They have a limited amount of energy. Because of that, their energy must deplete over time and they must cool off and dim. Eventually, they will become so cold that they will no longer emit visible light. It's exactly the same thing that happens to a hot coal taken out of a furnace. It dims and cools. If you understood anything about thermodynamics, you would know that such a thing must come to pass. They can't glow forever.

I can give you full list of observations that each one by itself should kill theory D.

So can I: gravity doesn't push things.

There is big difference in gravity between short distance and long distance while "long" and "short" are relative.

A statement in need of substantiation.

[Bored chemist]

I claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.

Well, that's trivially falsified.
We put probes into circular orbits around other bodies which we study such as the Moon and Mars.

The idea that objects can fall in and increase their circular orbital velocity due to momentum or any other idea is a pure fiction.

Again, trivially false.
We call it the "slingshot effect" and we make use of it when getting probes out into deep space.

The gravity would pull the objects together (due to collision) or push them away

Gravity has never been observed to push.
If it did then the Solar system wouldn't exist.

I'm ready to offer a full list of real observations that can kill theory D.

It is already dead. You should accept that and move on.
It was still-born.
It started out dead when you said this
"The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size. Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age."
That wasn't rue in March and it isn't true now.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14
I claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.

Well, that's trivially falsified.
We put probes into circular orbits around other bodies which we study such as the Moon and Mars.

A probe without engine is an object.
It is clear that without an engine you can't do it.

I'm ready to pay you 1000$ if you can do the following:
Let's assume that we wish to set that prove at a circular velocity around the Earth.
The radius of the circular velocity is R.
Now, let's assume that the probe is located at 100R from the earth.
I give you the option to have full control on its engine from 100R till 10R
However, once it is below that 10R radius, you have no access to its engine.
Now try to bring the probe so it will get into circular orbital velocity at R.
It is quite clear that you would never be able to do it (You can ask NASA about it)..
However, if you can do it, you get 1000$ - promise.

[Bored chemist]

A probe without engine is an object.

A probe with an engine is also an object.

A probe without engine is an object.
It is clear that without an engine you can't do it.

All the engine does is push things.
That same push could be delivered by  being hit by a randomly wandering bit of space junk.
So it's possible to get arbitrarily close to circular orbit, purely by chance.


None of this is relevant.
Gravity does not push.
If it did then orbits would not be stable.

Stop wasting time trying to distract from the real problems with your idea.
(1) Gravity does not push
(2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws
(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one.
(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from.
(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size."
(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age."
(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 11:02:35
A probe without engine is an object.
It is clear that without an engine you can't do it.

All the engine does is push things.
That same push could be delivered by being hit by a randomly wandering bit of space junk.
So it's possible to get arbitrarily close to circular orbit, purely by chance.

That is clearly incorrect.
Even if one biilion objects that are "randomly wandering bit of space junk" are falling in the direction of the Earth, none of them will set a circular orbit around the Earth.
All of them have only two options:
1. Direct collision with the Earth. (Pull inwards/collision)
2. Move nearby the earth, gain high velocity/momentum due to gravity and be ejected back to space. (Push outwards)
Not even a single object would set a circular orbit.
So, there are two options for a falling in object.
1. Pulling inwards - direct collision)
2. Pushing outwards
In the same token, assuming that one million stars are falling into the SMBH, while in this process of falling in, they break into Billion of Billion of Atoms/particles, not even One particle could join the accretion disc and set a circular orbit at 0.3c.
This is imagination!!!
Therefore, all the particles/Atoms in the accretion disc MUST come from INSIDE in order to set a circular orbit around the SMBH.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14
The gravity would pull the objects together (due to collision) or push them away

Gravity has never been observed to push.
If it did then the Solar system wouldn't exist.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14
I can give you full list of observations that each one by itself should kill theory D.

So can I: gravity doesn't push things.

Sorry, Gravity clearly Push things away.
As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:
Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.
We see this activity constantly.
With regards to the MW galaxy it's ultra high gravity ONLY push away.
This galaxy has a size of over than 100,000 LY
As it cross the space at almost 600Km/s it surly collide with many dwarf galaxies/stars clusters and it total with millions or even billions of stars per year.
All of those dwarf galaxies/clusters/stars are pushed away and clear the road for the mighty spiral galaxy.
Not even a single star can penetrate into the MW galactic disc.
If you consider that I'm wrong, than please show me only one star that you consider that it is in his way to collide with the galactic disc of the galaxy.

With regards to the Sun
The Oort cloud is orbiting at about 2LY around the Sun.
There are billions of objects in this could.
Many of them are ejected outwards as the sun orbits around the center of the galaxy.
There are billions of other stars that also orbit at the galactic disc around the center at a similar radius from the center.
All of them have a similar Oort cloud.
All of them are ejecting objects as they cross the space.
Therefore, the galactic disc might be full with garbage.
However, not even a single object can penetrate into the solar system.
Any object that is not part of the Oort cloud must be shifted away by the solar gravity and clear the road for the coming solar system.
Sorry, you have a severe misunderstanding about how gravity really works.

Stop wasting time trying to distract from the real problems with your idea.

(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It does
(2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws  - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.
(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.
(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always there. The idea that the Big bang could create space is the biggest fiction of the BBT as the space was always there. We already know that even in empty space there is some energy. That energy could potentially converted into a the energy that is needed to create a single BH. I don't need more than a single BH in the whole universe .
(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation. However, if the whole Universe acts as a cavity than it is clear that there is no end for this cavity. Therefore, it must be infinite.
(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.
(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.
This isn't the case. The far end galaxies are moving faster than the speed of light. therefore, we can't get their light and therefore we can't see them although they are there. So in any direction that we look, there are billions over billions galaxies. However we can only see those galaxies that due to relativity law we can still see them.

Quote from: Dave Lev on Today at 06:20:14
There is big difference in gravity between short distance and long distance while "long" and "short" are relative.

A statement in need of substantiation.

Well, I'm not sure where is the border between long to short.
With regards Earth - It seems to me that up to the upper most satellite radius, we can consider it as a "short rang". Therefore, any satellite there will eventual fall in and collide with the earth.
With regards to the galaxy - Any object that is located outwards the galactic disc would be pushed away even if it moves at ultra velocity directly in the direction of the galaxy center It will be shifted away by 100%.

In any case, please focus on the following subject:

Please, would you kindly also offer real list of verifications that should kill the BBT.

[Bored chemist]

As I have stated, there are two possibilities for falling in objects:
Fall in and collide with the main object or be pushed away.

Why don't  you consider the third possibility?
Don't you understand it?
Most people would get to grips with it quite easily.
They thing falls towards something, and then misses it.

Since you don't seem to understand basic physics, you are not in a position to criticise it, but let's see how you did.

(1) Gravity does not push - Yes It does

It plainly does not.
But you don't understand how something can get close to something and then miss.
This says a lot about you...

2) Black holes don't break the conservation laws  - Black hole does not break the conservation laws and also does not evaporate as Hawking had claimed. There is no negative particles. BH has the ability to create new positive particle pair and give them extra kinetic energy by its high gravity energy.

Unless it evaporates in the process of creating new particles, what you have described is a breach of the conservation laws.
It's just that you don't seem to be bright enough to recognise this.

(3) Even if they did, it wouldn't help because they wouldn't build a universe that looks like this one - Yes it does. The Rocket over rocket system can do it easily.

That wouldn't work anyway,, but it doesn't matter.
The "rocket over rocket "idea is a breach of GR.

(4) Even if they could, you still need to explain where the first one comes from - The Universe and its infinite space was always there

No.
Because Olber.
Also because the conservation laws.

(5) This simply isn't true "The Black body radiation in the CMB is a clear indication that our Universe is Infinite in its size." - Yes it is. I have already explained this issue. You would never ever get a black body radiation outside the cavity (in the open space). Only if you are located at the cavity itself (or monitor the radiation in the cavity by a tiny hole) you could find the Black body radiation.

That's not a sensible explanation.
Inside of a finite, large, universe that was once very hot, you expect a CMB.

As I have pointed out, what if we are in a big (but finite) box with black walls at 2.7K?
That would be finite, and we would see BBR .

(6) Even if it was true, this wouldn't be a valid deduction "Therefore, it also must be infinite in its age." - Yes it is. In order to set an infinite Universe from a single BH you must use infinite time.

Other mechanisms (those which are  not a pile of junk) do not start from a singe BH and make it grow by magic.

(7) We know that it's finite, thanks to Olber - This is a fiction. Our Universe is infinite. Olber theory could work only if in the all the galaxies in the infinite universe are moving at a velocity which is lower than the speed of light relative to our location.

No, because some of them would be moving towards us (very fast).

Now, since it's clear that you are wrong about all that, why not just accept that you are wrong?

[Kryptid]

Sorry, Gravity clearly Push things away.

Yes... a force that has only ever been observed to be attractive will push things away... That makes perfect sense! 

Well, I'm not sure where is the border between long to short.
With regards Earth - It seems to me that up to the upper most satellite radius, we can consider it as a "short rang". Therefore, any satellite there will eventual fall in and collide with the earth.

If that was true, then the Earth could not orbit the Sun because the Sun is further away from us than any satellite. The Earth would repel the Sun instead and be pushed into interstellar space. Orbits require a net attraction to be present. Orbits are "falling and missing". Falling requires a net attraction.

If you disagree and think that it is possible for two objects with a net repulsion to each other to orbit each other, then tell me how you would make a positively-charged object orbit another positively-charged object instead of simply having both objects fly away from each other.

Please, would you kindly also offer real list of verifications that should kill the BBT.

I already did. The discovery of objects that are too old for the Big Bang to account for would do that. Black dwarfs and blue dwarfs are two such objects. The discovery of cold neutron stars would be yet another.

[Halc]

I claim that objects would NEVER EVER orbit at a circular orbital path unless they come from inside.

Well, that's trivially falsified.

...
It is quite clear that you would never be able to do it (You can ask NASA about it)..
However, if you can do it, you get 1000$ - promise.

Your promises are as empty as your ideas. Just another deliberate lie.

I'm ready to pay you 1000$ if you can do the following:
Let's assume that we wish to set that prove at a circular velocity around the Earth.
The radius of the circular velocity is R.
Now, let's assume that the probe is located at 100R from the earth.
I give you the option to have full control on its engine from 100R till 10R

What's the point of starting out at 100R if we have control down to 10R?  That's the same as starting at 10R.

However, once it is below that 10R radius, you have no access to its engine.
Now try to bring the probe so it will get into circular orbital velocity at R.

That same push could be delivered by being hit by a randomly wandering bit of space junk.

That is clearly incorrect.
Even if one biilion objects that are "randomly wandering bit of space junk" are falling in the direction of the Earth, none of them will set a circular orbit around the Earth.

But there can be a bit of space junk already in a circular orbit about Earth. There are plenty, and they have to track all of them to avoid collisions.  You drop a screwdriver while working on a sattelite?  It becomes a bit of space junk in a circular orbit, pretty much forever.

The most trivial case I can think of: You have a billiard ball of mass m already in a 1R orbit.  You take your 'probe' which is another identical ball and put it in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 10R to 1R.  If it hits the orbiting one from the rear exactly at 1R, the 'probe' will now assume a circular orbit, and the other ball is boosted to the now eccentric orbit.

This works just as well for a ball falling from space right into Earth.  It only has to cross paths once, and just the right hit will take away exactly the correct momentum and drop the 'probe' into a circular orbit. The hit must occur at 1R, but otherwise the angle of the hit seems more important than the velocity or mass of the thing hit.

For our object in the eccentric orbit, v = √(GM(2/r - 1/a))  where r is 1 and a is 5.5
So v at r=1 would be √(GM*1.818) which needs to be reduced to v = √(GM) so all it needs to do is hit (with an elastic frictionless collision) an identical billiard ball with tangential velocity of √(GM), with random values for the other two velocity components, and the probe will assume a perfectly circular orbit.  Adding friction just changes the math a bit.  The thing it hits might be a bit of clay which doesn't bounce off at all, but sticks.

You will not pay me the 1000 of course since that 'promise' is as much bull-s**t as everything else you post. And NASA does not assert that a circular orbit cannot result from a collision. It would violate time-reversibility if that were so: An object could then not be knocked out of a circular orbit by an elastic collision with a random object, which seems pretty clearly wrong to me. If it can be knocked out, then playing the events in reverse should illustrate it being knocked into a circular orbit.

My point in posting seems to be to illustrate that pretty much all your assertions (especially the ones where you use the word 'clearly' or 'you must agree') are wrong, and so obviously wrong that it can only be deliberate. Nobody is as stupid as you portray yourself.

[Dave Lev (OP)]

But there can be a bit of space junk already in a circular orbit about Earth. There are plenty, and they have to track all of them to avoid collisions.  You drop a screwdriver while working on a sattelite?  It becomes a bit of space junk in a circular orbit, pretty much forever.
The most trivial case I can think of: You have a billiard ball of mass m already in a 1R orbit.  You take your 'probe' which is another identical ball and put it in an elliptical orbit that ranges from 10R to 1R.  If it hits the orbiting one from the rear exactly at 1R, the 'probe' will now assume a circular orbit, and the other ball is boosted to the now eccentric orbit.

This works just as well for a ball falling from space right into Earth.  It only has to cross paths once, and just the right hit will take away exactly the correct momentum and drop the 'probe' into a circular orbit. The hit must occur at 1R, but otherwise the angle of the hit seems more important than the velocity or mass of the thing hit.

For our object in the eccentric orbit, v = √(GM(2/r - 1/a))  where r is 1 and a is 5.5
So v at r=1 would be √(GM*1.818) which needs to be reduced to v = √(GM) so all it needs to do is hit (with an elastic frictionless collision) an identical billiard ball with tangential velocity of √(GM), with random values for the other two velocity components, and the probe will assume a perfectly circular orbit.  Adding friction just changes the math a bit.  The thing it hits might be a bit of clay which doesn't bounce off at all, but sticks.

It seems that you have missed the whole point.
So, let me explain it from the beginning.
Based on the BBT, there was a time when all the hydrogen Atoms had been created. At that time there was no SMBH of even BH. I claim that without very massive object nearby, all of those atoms would be spread into the open space without creating even one Star.
Let's assume that the earth had been created. Let's also assume that at the first phase it was not orbiting around anything and nothing was orbiting around it. However, an object (at the size of Asteroid) is coming from the deep space directly in the direction of the earth. As this object comes to a distance of 100R it is affected by the gravity of the Earth. So, I give you the possibility to have full control on its movement in space till it get to 10R.
You can even set it in a pure circular orbit around the Earth at this radius 10R with a circular orbital velocity - V.
Your mission is to set it at a circular orbit at radius R.
Please remember, at this phase nothing orbits around the Earth. So it can't hit any object that orbits at R.
Based on Newton (V= M G /R^2), in order to set it radius R its velocity should be 10^-2 V = about 3.15V
V is the velocity at 10R.
So, if we wish to decrease the circular orbit radius by 10 we must increase the velocity by 3.15
I claim that in any direction/velocity that you would push (from 10R in the direction of the Earth) this asteroid it would never set a circular orbit around the earth at lower radius.
I would like to add that even if you have one million asteroids orbiting at 10R and you try to shoot them randomly in the direction of earth, It is quite clear to me that even if they hit with each other the chance that one of them will set a circular orbit at R is virtually Zero.
So, the whole point is as follow:
1. Star formation - We know that after the big bang, all the atoms (that have just been created) are moving away from each other (due to the inflation and space expansion). Therefore, without a massive object nearby, not even a single star would be created. Therefore the expectation that stars could be formed after the Big bang is none realistic.
2.Circular orbit - Let's assume that something had been created. The chance to get an circular orbital system between two objects that came from the deep space in the direction of each other is virtually zero.
3. Increasing the Circular orbital velocity - Let's assume that a star (S2) is orbiting around a main object as a SMBH. The chance that it would fall in, break to its atoms and set an orbital velocity of 0.3c at the accretion disc is also zero.
Therefore, all the matter in the accretion disc must come from inside (from the SMBH) and not from outside (as a cloud or star)

This is my point of view

[Dave Lev (OP)]

Quote from: Dave Lev on Yesterday at 15:48:26
Sorry, Gravity clearly Push things away.

Yes... a force that has only ever been observed to be attractive will push things away... That makes perfect sense! 

Well, I have asked it before, so let me ask it again.
Do we see any star that is falling into the galactic disc from outside?
Why we see so many Meteors falling on earth due to gravity and NOT EVEN ONE STAR falling into the galactic disc?
You don't care about it as you clearly don't have an interest in observation that contradicts the concept that you have.
As you think that gravity only Pull, you have no interest to contradict it with the missing stars that should be pulled inwards to the galactic disc.
If you claim that Gravity only pull, while it is clear that the galaxy collides with Millions of stars as it cross the open space, why none of those stars are falling in the galactic disc?
Actually, we do see stars, but all of them are ejected outwards from the galactic disc.
Those stars are called - Hypervelocity stars.
Our scientists claim that those "are stars with a velocity so great, that they are able to escape the gravitational pull of the galaxy"
So, if we see quite many Hypervelocity stars that are ejected from the galactic disc, why we can't find even one that is falling in?
You claim that gravity should only Pull.
So please show me one star that the gravity of the galactic disc pulls it inwards.
It is quite clear that you won't find any!!!
The answer is very simple -
Any star that moves away from the galactic disc/spiral arm is ejected from the galactic disc at that Hypervelocity due to gravity!!!
As our scientists have no clue how gravity works at the spiral galaxy they clearly don't understand the real meaning of those Hypervelocity stars and they also don't care about the missing "falling in stars".
Therefore, the combination of observable Hypervelocity stars that ejected from the galactic disc with the missing falling in stars proves that the gravity above/ below the galactic disc which should considered as long rang, push objects away and not pull them inwards.
Therefore, the galaxy won't take even one star from outside.
All the stars in the galaxy had been created by the SMBH itself.
Actually, if there was something that called Star DNA, you would surly find that all the stars in the MW galaxy carry the same DNA.
Hence, all the stars belong to the same mother - which is the SMBH in our galaxy.
The spiral shape is a direct outcome of stars that are moving from inside outside. As they do so, they set the spiral arms.

[Bored chemist]

Do we see any star that is falling into the galactic disc from outside?

We see entire galaxies of stars falling into eachother.
How could we hope to spot a single star doing it? We have only been looking in detail at the sky for 100 years or so.
So, no star has been seen to move more than 100  light years.
That's time to over about 1/500 of the diameter of the Milky way.
It's unlikely that we would spot it.

If gravity pushed then orbits would not happen.
We would not be here.