Great example. If this doesn't convince Jaden that this part of his scenario is wrong, hard to imagine what will.
Jim
Jim,
If a ball is squeezed in from every point of its perimeter...
& then if all of those directional forces are simultaneously released all at once...
does the ball get propelled in any direction from the stored up energy force of its compression...
Or does it just restore itself to 'equilibrium' with no movement in any direction... other than gravity pulling on it.
If the ball is moving, as in Corwyn's example, the force is in the movement(velocity) of the mass of the ball... & in a direction.
When an 'immovable' fixed floor or wall stops the ball's movement & the ball compresses, that compression force is 'released' or redirected in another direction.
If it were a steel canon ball instead of a pliable rubber one it would do damage to the wall or floor. If a steel ball could be compressed as much as a rubber ball it would rebound at a much higher velocity than a rubber ball. Think of a sponge rubber ball & a regular golf ball being hit by a driver.
The cue ball has no force other than its static mass & that ability to resist & accept a force & its potential compression & rebound ability.
The force comes from the moving speed of the mass of the cue stick.
AND
The resistance of the moving mass, the cue stick, BY the ball, it's that 'force' that causes the more pliable material of the tip & the shaft to compress. The CB, not being fixed, can not hold that compression & is moved away by BOTH the momentum force of the moving mass of the cue stick
AND the compression 'release' of both the tip & the shaft...
That 'force' of the ball's static mass causes the tip & the shaft to compress.
That compression force is then applied back to the mass of the ball that restricted the force of the moving mass of the cue stick.
There is much going on during contact. It is not just a simple collision like that of two(2) very much less pliable, 'statically' hard phenolic balls.
Like Renfro/Chris said, treating it as such is a mistake.
Just a few short years ago all of the scientific testing said that a very hard rigid material driver head would result in more compression of the newer more firm golf balls & yield more distance. It basically did that compared to the softer wood heads even with hard plastic inserts & the more hard but still relatively 'soft' steel heads compared to the more hard materials.
Then the theory changed. A hard 'center' material mounted with a more pliable perimeter would yield more distance by BOTH compressing the ball AND
trampolining the ball too.
That method yielded so much more distance that the USGA had to place limits on the COR of golf clubs heads. The same had to be done for synthetic material baseball bats.
That theory & technology made the contact of hitting a golf ball more complex than it ever was before when the heads were only of a more solid rigid material.
Again, this is just food for thought for anyone interested.