At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.
I mean sometimes when I look at this I find a perfect of setup of forces and objects and how they work on each other...
This might sound weird but help me out :P
ans is in the laws of motion
try to fit those stuff in terms of conversation of momentum and energy ... it should fit.
honestly ... could you put your Q in two sentences.
Ok, why is it that when an object of a force 20N acting on an object that's mass is equal they will collide and they would cancel each other out(example, waves... 2 equal waves would cancel their motion out). However, bring two objects with different valued forces one 20N and the other is 5 N and there is no balance the weaker force will experience something greater x4 times based on that object that is greater! = Imbalance of forces in that collision Sorry I can't even describe it right because I don't understand it properly.
I'm trying to ask the question properly now.
i think you are being confused about force and momentum. forces like 5N force 10 N force ... there are ideal conditions okay ... there is just change of momentum. forces aren't constant in collisions.
somebody/something should be constantly pushing from behind for forces ... like two objects are colliding ... and you and your friend are constantly pushing from behind.
also forces produce acceleration ... for objects to be pushing and increasing velocity .... this quite impossible ... either you need fields like Electric/magnetic field ... or gravity ... or ... you need to patch up things like rocket from behind. try thinking differently ... momentum is always conserved!!
so is energy ... try to fit thins these ways. also check this out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inelastic_collision
gotta go ... these conversations theorems are absolute. things always works according to them. also try to rephrase your question. you put out quite a bulk. it makes quite unreadable and scary. Be back few hrs later.
Part of your confusion may stem from a misunderstandingof wave dynamics. Generally speaking, waves cannot collide, because there is no actual forward movement going on in a wave. Waves generally pass right through each other, like ghosts. It's true that during the passage, the surface of the water may be flat -- as their amplitudes cancel out in that place, at that time -- but that does NOT mean either wave is gone. They will pick up on the other side of the "collision" as if nothing had happened. Take a look at a "passing" wave sometime, which also has something floating on the surface of the water, say a bit of seaweed. What you'll see is that although the wave appears to move from left to right (say), the seaweed does NOT. It just bobs up and down in place. What this is telling you is that the water itself isn't going anywhere. What you perceive as a wave traveling from left to right is a behaviour of the water that is moving -- not the water itself. It's just like people doing "The Wave" in stadium audiences. The "wave" moves -- but not the people. For that reason, you can easily imagine two stadium "waves" traveling in oppposite directions and "colliding" with each other, but they would just pass right through each other and continue on the other side. Right where the two waves meet there would probably be some chaos, as people attempted to follow two directions at once, but it wouldn't impede the progress of either wave. Same with water, or nearly any wave. (There are some exceptions for extremely high densities of photons in an EM wave, but these are not part of daily experience.) A wave is an epiphenomenon. It actually only exists as a "moving object" in our perceptions, like your signature in the air when you draw it with a sparkler. (A wave does carry momentum and exert a force, of course, like a traveling object, and that makes it "convenient" to talk about it as if it were a traveling object. But it's not.) These questions actually have profound consequences, because at some level they go straight to the heart of reality: what does it actually mean for something to "move"? Is there a "background" against which things move, like the paper on which pictures are drawn? If so -- why can't we measure any of its properties? Why isn't there something measureable left over (the "paper") after an object moves? Why doesn't the "paper" interact with the objects? But if there is no background -- no "paper" -- how do we interpret the space between objects, and their motion? It seems difficult to say it's just nothing, because empty space doesn't seem the same as nothing at all. The most modern answer suggests that the resolution is that in fact the "paper" does exist -- but the objects we perceive do not. Everything, including thrown baseballs and ourselves, is a wave in the medium, and hence every object is, to some extent, unreal, just a crude perception of some fancy wiggling waves in spacetime. But the math for this does not, yet, work out right. So we await another Einstein to clarify matters.
Guys you know what? I discovered my greatest mistake of all! and I will write a proper question explaining it in detail. I will do that soon when I can. Thank you all for the effort!