[Origin]

That would be the point on the drawing marked X. So yes I can do simple vectors.

You can do simple vectors?  Great, what is the magnitude of the vector that goes from the origin to your point 'x'?

[Momentus (OP)]

That means the blue ball is moving 4 units in the x direction and 3 units in the y direction which means the ball is moving at 5 units along a line that is 36.9 degrees from the CD line (x-axis).

A large impulse changes the momentum of the blue ball. The change in momentum is accomplished by a change in velocity. Velocity is a vector quantity of speed and direction.

A change in direction does not involve a change of speed. If you are coasting along on your bicycle at 4 mph and you turn, change direction, your speed remains at 4 mph.
There was a force interaction between your tyres and the road. That force did not change your speed. You need to pedal, apply a force along your line of motion to change your speed. So The bicycle was moving at 4 units in the x direction, and is now has a resultant speed of 4 mph, with vectors of 3 units in the y direction and 2.6 in the x direction.

The blue ball is moving at an unchanged speed of 4 units the vector sum of 3 units in the y direction and 2.6 units in the x direction

Which is shown by the original drawing.

[Origin]

The blue ball is moving at an unchanged speed of 4 units the vector sum of 3 units in the y direction and 2.6 units in the x direction

Which is shown by the original drawing.

You are arguing in bad faith.  Or to put it more simply you are lying.

You originally said that the blue ball was moving at 4 units in the x-direction after the collision:

That change is shown in the diagram as the red mass coming to rest, no residual momentum, the blue mass moves on the line of CD an unchanged speed of 4 units and also along the line of BC at  speed of 3 units.

Now you dishonestly say that you have always said the ball is moving at 2.6 units in the x-direction.
It is obvious why you made up this lie, it because your original numbers result in the ball moving at speed of 5 units after the collision, which is not what you 'want' the answer to be. 

Now that you have decided to make up the speed of 2.6 units in the x-direction after the collision, could you identify the force that caused the deceleration of the blue ball from 4 units to 2.6 units?

Edit:  Just to let you know, if you want to stick with the new made up number of 2.6 units then your example violates the conservation of momentum!  You seem to be painting yourself into a corner...

[Momentus (OP)]

You originally said that the blue ball was moving at 4 units in the x-direction after the collision:

No you have made that up. Tell me which post I said that in. Use the quote function.

it because your original numbers result in the ball moving at speed of 5 units after the collision

That is what you have said, not me. I have never said that the blue ball moves at anything other than 4 units.
I guess you could not follow the bicycle example, or relate it To my quotes from the Principia
.

Now you dishonestly say that you have always said the ball is moving at 2.6 units in the x-direction.
It is obvious why you made up this lie, it because your original numbers result in the ball moving at speed of 5 units after the collision, which is not what you 'want' the answer to be.

This is my first mention of 2.6 units. It is the first time that I have calculated it. It arose from the bicycle analogy.
I have quoted examples from the Principia which show that Newton established that the mass does not speed up. What supports your fantasy that a perpendicular force increases the speed of a mass?

[paul cotter]

Halc's example simply refutes your spurious claim.

[Momentus (OP)]

Halc's example simply refutes your spurious claim.

Which post refers?

[Momentus (OP)]

If one applies a force at 90 degrees to an object in motion the velocity component in the original direction will not change but acceleration will undoubtedly occur in the direction of the applied force.

Yes and that acceleration will be due to a change of velocity by changing direction.
It does not speed up from 4 units to 5 units

[Bored chemist]

I think that is an excellent observation

It wasn't an observation, it was a question.
And it's a question which you failed to answer.

Do you plan to tell us where the kinetic energy of the red ball went?
Or are you saying the laws of physics don't apply to you?

[paul cotter]

Halc's post #28 explains in graphic terms, without any maths, how wrong you are.

[Origin]

No you have made that up. Tell me which post I said that in. Use the quote function.

You are arguing in bad faith.  Or to put it more simply you are lying.

I was wrong on this.  I have been suffering under the impression that you had said the the blue ball continued moving in the x-direction at 4 units.  But that is not what you wrote.  Sorry for my misunderstanding, my bad.
I guess I assumed you said that since that is what would actually happen. 
The overall speed of the blue ball after the collision is not 4 units, that of course would violate the conservation of momentum.  The x component of the blue balls velocity is not 2.6 units.  Since there was no force from the collision that was in the x direction the speed in the x direction remains unchanged at 4 units.

[paul cotter]

Hi Origin, I am not surprised errors have arisen. The minimum I would have required would be two diagrams, one before impact and one after, both annotated with proposed velocities. Still we have the problem where the OP will not accept that a force at right angles can influence the speed of the mass.

[Origin]

Still we have the problem where the OP will not accept that a force at right angles can influence the speed of the mass.

Agreed. 
The only part of the problem that the OP got correct is that the blue balls speed in the y direction goes from 0 m/s before the collision to 3 m/s in the negative y direction after the collision.
It is rather humorous that the OP says a force that is perpendicular to a moving ball cannot change the speed of the ball and then turns around and says that the blue ball does increase in speed from 0 to 3 m/s in the y direction.
Since he says the blue balls speed increases to 3 m/s in the y direction (which is correct) he has to say the blue balls speed in the x direction decreases from 4 m/s to 2.6 m/s (which is wrong) so that his fantasy that the overall speed of the blue ball doesn't change.
The reality is that the blue balls speed in the x direction will not change since the impulse from the collision is only in the y direction.  So after the collision the blue ball has an x component of velocity that is 4 m/s and a y component of velocity that is 3 m/s.  The overall velocity is 5 m/s after the collision.  That is pure Newtonian mechanics.

[Momentus (OP)]

By your assertions, the ball will attain a new velocity of 0.1 m/sec mostly west and will only make it past the edge of the track because it's falling off the tee and not go 200 meters.

The angle at which the ball moves after the collision is proportional to the impulse.
As the angle approaches 90 degrees the force approaches infinity, an irresistible force against an immovable object.
My guess is that would be as near to 90 degrees as makes no difference. The club is not free to stop at the point of impact, it is being "driven through". The golf ball is deformed by the impact and rebounds off the club head, which is still moving. The experiment is a thought experiment. The analysis would be complex.

[paul cotter]

Yes a full rigorous analysis would be complex but a simple impulse is a good approximation. I don't know how you can assume the ball is an immovable object or where you get the idea that the force becomes infinite as the angle approaches 90. There are other ways to send the ball flying off the train at any angle you wish: a small explosive charge adjacent to the ball would deliver an impulse of extremely short duration.

[Momentus (OP)]

Still we have the problem where the OP will not accept that a force at right angles can influence the speed of the mass.

Speed is distance travelled along line of motion over time, i e m/s.

Newton is quite clear on this point. Force along the line of action changes speed. Perpendicular force changes direction. He furthermore says that an oblique force can be resolved into linear and perpendicular forces which will change speed and direction respectively.
The OP suggests that you read the Principia before making a complete fool of yourself.

blue balls speed in the y direction goes from 0 m/s before the collision to 3 m/s i

It is rather humorous that the OP says a force that is perpendicular to a moving ball cannot change the speed of the ball and then turns around and says that the blue ball does increase in speed from 0 to 3 m/s in the y direction.

No The OP did not say that.

The diagram shows a blue ball traveling at a velocity of A-C, which is struck by a red ball traveling at a velocity of B-C.
The Blue ball is deflected with a resultant velocity C-D, the vector change is solely of direction, the red ball comes to rest its vector change is solely of magnitude.

Speed is distance travelled along line of motion over time, i e m/s. The speed of the blue ball along its direction of travel at all times is 4 units.

The motion of 3 units is a vector on the x axis of the speed of the blue ball after its direction has been changed by the perpendicular impulse. How is that humorous?

[Origin]

The OP suggests that you read the Principia before making a complete fool of yourself.

Don't concern yourself, I have taken university physics and I know how to do a collision problem.

Speed is distance travelled along line of motion over time, i e m/s. The speed of the blue ball along its direction of travel at all times is 4 units.

This is wrong based on Newtonian mechanics and experimentation.

The motion of 3 units is a vector on the x axis of the speed of the blue ball after its direction has been changed by the perpendicular impulse. How is that humorous?

It is humorous/sad that you think a force in the y direction can somehow change the speed of something moving in the x direction.

You are completely confused about this whole scenario.  Don't you wonder why everyone here is telling you that you are wrong?

[Origin]

It is rather humorous that the OP says a force that is perpendicular to a moving ball cannot change the speed of the ball and then turns around and says that the blue ball does increase in speed from 0 to 3 m/s in the y direction

No The OP did not say that.

You most certainly did:

the blue mass moves on the line of CD an unchanged speed of 4 units and also along the line of BC at  speed of 3 units.

The line BC is the y-axis. 
I don't know why you want to deny this since it is the only part of the problem that you got right!

In your example you state that the red ball moving at 3 m/s in the -y direction hits the blue ball, the red ball stops and the blue ball accelerates to 3 m/s in the -y direction.  This means that 100% of the KE was transferred from the red ball to the blue ball and the transfer occurred in the y-direction.  We know this because the velocity in the y direction is the same before and after the collision.
You claim that the speed of the ball in the x direction slowed down from its original speed of 4 m/s.  There is no force that you have identified that would cause that to happen.

Your big misconception is that you have got it in your head that a perpendicular collision of a moving object cannot change the speed of that object, which is wrong.  You seem to have gotten that impression because of how a centripetal force works.  I will say the obvious once more; a collision and centripetal forces are 2 different things.   

[Momentus (OP)]

Crazy theories

A point of view from the ?other side.

I would liked to have discussed a simple force/momentum reaction which appears to have profound implications regarding dark matter and dark energy.

I am an amateur interested in science, with an engineering background. My expectation was that those who chose to respond to my post would have knowledge greater or at least similar to mine.

In my description I assumed that perpendicular force did not change speed, only direction. I thought that was axiomatic. It is the nature of centripetal force after all.

The moderator does not agree. Has the right, forum rules, to move the post and exercised that right.

Now my post is in there with the loonies, trolls and posters who will not listen to good advice.

I tried a second post

If a force is applied perpendicular to an object's velocity, it will alter the direction of motion without changing the speed.

I think that this applies to a blue ball rolling down a snooker table and struck by a red ball rolling across the table

Also, the red ball stops at the point of impact.

I cannot see how it can behave in any other way, but seek confirmation.

Now that is a polite scientific question. Moved to the weird science forum.

How do you explain something to a naked science god who dismisses Newton's proof of centripetal force as irrelevant?

I did not post with the expectation that basic laws of motion would be ignored, but to discuss the effects of applying the laws, as written, to a specific simple example.

Nobody who actually has a valid new theory is going to publish it in a forum. New ideas are not going to come out of here.

I think that sums up the Naked Science forum view of New Theories, and the moderators will do their best to ensure that outcome.

[Origin]

In my description I assumed that perpendicular force did not change speed, only direction. I thought that was axiomatic.

This is exactly why your post should be under 'New Theories'.
In your example the conservation of momentum is violated.  A scenario involving a violation of the conservation of momentum would indeed be a 'new theory'.
In you example a body can decelerate from 4 m/s to 2.6 m/s with no force applied.  This is a violation of Newtons first law which indeed is a new theory.

How do you explain something to a naked science god who dismisses Newton's proof of centripetal force as irrelevant?

Your example was about an elastic collision and not about a centripetal force.

I do sort of agree that your posts should not be under the heading of 'New Theories', they should be under the heading of 'cesspool' or 'Garbage Can' because your 'theory' does not agree with experimentation.  In other words your hypothesis has been falsified right off the bat by hundreds of years of experimentation.

[Origin]

I am an amateur interested in science

As an amateur you should listen to people who have more knowledge than you.  You have been conversing with actual physicists (not me I'm a retired engineer) who have tried to point out your errors,  You have ignored all attempts to help you, this attitude is not conducive to learning more about the subject you claim to be interested in.
I realize that you think you have discovered something new which very exciting for you but the truth is you are not understanding the underlying physics.  You have 2 choices, you can listen to the advice from others and explore their suggestions or you can continue to believe your 'theory' that does not match reality.
In the long run it makes no difference which route you choose, but don't expect anyone to agree with your erroneous ideas.