John Schoenfeld:
You still have it all wrong.

No he doesn't. You do.

Your reasons for this assertion are irrelevent and fail to explain the
mechanics behind point mass collisions.

Point masses don't exist except as idealizations. Along with idealizing
a point mass, you have to take what goes along with the fiction if you
expect to get something other than non-sense. You've already proved that
when you got complete non-sense by ignoring the physics.

[...]
That's your mistake. If the collision occurs, where did the energy
go? It went into additional mass at the point of impact. or else some
or all of it went into heat. Whatever energy is not dissipated as heat,
is the kinetic energy given to the masses as they separate.

The issue is not with dynamics but with mechanics - specifically,
Newtons THIRD law claiming that paired equal and opposite forces occur
at the point of collision.

You're too busy firing off a load of crap and not busy enough reading
what I wrote about impulse. In particular, one must take the limit
so that the impulse is removed from the equations. Then the forces are
always balanced in any interval dt as t- 0.



Wrong. The kinetic energy is transformed into heat if the collision
is perfectly inelastic. If you use forces, then you have to use impulses.

This is an example of the irrelevancy your posts tend to contain.

You not only don't know as much as you think you do, you don't know
as much as the average college sophomore.

[...]

Mass density is not infinite, but continuous over space. You have no
evidence suggesting otherwise unless you invoke quantum mechanics
which is ultimately derived from Newtons work and inapplicable in this
very basic scenario.

If you ever took a physics course, I suggest you get a refund and
consider legal action against your advisor for negligence in failing
to steer you into a field that requires less in the way of analytical
skills. As a physicist you simply wouldn't be employed. As an engineer
you'd be dangerous.