Extra Collision Examples

 

Wall Collision will detail a range of outcomes from how directional potential behave on wall like structures. A few questions require answers. If a wall like structure containing 100 quantities of mass has an unmanifested, sealed, or neutral vector potential(Non-set), would a smaller object containing 1 quantity of mass with 1 potential cause the greater mass to move? If 1 is the manifested minimum slope velocity allowed, would all of the greater mass move by 1 each? It would because conservation of momentum doesn't mean reduced velocity. It means same velocity over a greater change in distance.  In such a case, the possibility for a copying effect should be accounted for if all 100 quantities of mass produce 1 unit of velocity each. This reproductive effect does not violate conservation of momentum concerning the size associated with these objects because quantity is a different matter to account for. A change in size is a change in area , so the illusion of delay occurs, but velocity is not affected by change in size. All 100 quantities will copy 1 velocity backward each from X1. 

These results will represent possible series of outcomes depending on the relative frame of an entity. General and local shared states will combine relevant variables and distribute them for a balanced result. Since 1 is the minimum for directional potential and slope velocity, a general frame will oscillate between two options. All frames are valid said Einstein, but one might still be able to determine the causal frame from damage done on impact. See formula table on Real 2D Area :

This diagram illustrates a string effect, or output interaction, between two objects. They'll continue to oscillate, until they are balanced at 1 slope velocity each(d). The string position's output are numbers under both objects' edges. They were too long to fit into those small rectangles. I can implement larger potentials with a larger gap between their directional potentials for more elasticity. But by using a small gap with small potentials, it allowed me to notice that size will matter when both objects achieve balanced slope velocities(c). Therefore, the smaller size will utilize their combined median distance, or it will use a majority portion of the median distance. Larger differences between potentials and sizes will cause longer duration of steep oscillations before a lock in sets place at nearly balanced slope velocities. All other calculations can be plugged in by following instructions from Real 2D Area. I can't say that I didn't practiced something extra about size that I didn't even realize from my own calculations. This diagram exemplifies the notion of weight and compliments the Harmonized Tune cycle. The outer circumferences ,of a rotating body, have greater angular velocities and momentums than its inner circumferences. Faster mass , or quantities, elevate because they're lighter(outer circumferences = max edge of a lever), while heaver ones sink because they're slower (inner circumferences = minimum baseline of a lever). Pressure and density of objects can influence these results. Under normal conditions, this is always the case.  

1a) The solution for my question came to me earlier than I imagined it would. Also, my past observations about common misconceptions in Legacy Science helped me resolve the conservation of momentum issue by classifying it as a type of chaotic noise cycle shown also in prior examples. I established a number of possible outcomes for the question about unmanifested or sealed potentials interacting with a minimal directional potential. 1b) The directional potential ,as backward, will transfer through like pendulums or a cradle. X101 should have a range of causal relative motion from Max{Dt (2B):t(1F)++} to min { Dt(1Ø+ Dt(1B)}. 1c) The vector potential behaves like a dominant directional potential. In such an artificial gravitational state,  X1's potential will be harmonized by sharing its backward motion with X2's neutralized or unmanifested vector potentials. In previous examples, I established that non-set <(lesser than) minimal or active potential. A transfer of potential can simply go from X1 through to X101. Another relative occurrence is a chain effect of bonding by rebalancing the dominant backward potentials with subsequent sealed non-set potentials. The 'quality' of the object(Xn) changes, and the initial 1 backward potential will activate all 1B in its chain. At the end, X101 will have t(1B) while X1 has t(1F) completing the polarization for ( Xn). I assume that all quantities will motion 1Sb  if their artificial vibrations are not concerted into sizes. Slope backward velocity is not necessarily directional potential as described and differentiated by my past formulas. Some extra examples can clarify some common misconceptions about conservation of momentum. The angular velocity or (Arc * Artificial Frequency) will remain the same regardless of changes to the size of its circumference. What changes is the number of revolutions within the same window of time due to the change in distance traveled to meet a full revolution. This creates the illusion of a slowed angular velocity which isn't the case , since it didn't change.  This behavior was depicted as a chaotic noise cycle in prior illustrations. A harmonized tune cycle is the solution for the Wheel Paradox. These cycles are near balanced, but each circumference's angular velocity diverts in order to cover differing distances within the same window of time.

2a) is another example like 1b. The potential passes through, and greater potential leads to more possible outcomes depending on initial conditions like types of material constructs. An additional outcome for 2a includes recoil. 2b will be how another outcome could absorb potential by passing on less to subsequent quantities until all transferring potentials dissipate. It can be convincing to the knowledgeable that I'm dealing with earthquake like seismic waves such as P and S waves. There might be similarities, but I rather keep my focus on my interpretations for these calculations and not recall common wave interpretations. Furthermore, I don't recommend , in this case, restrictive interpretations into only causal frames of reference.