This is more of a confirmation post whether my ideas are correct or not.
Suppose a ball of mass $5 kg$ travelling with uniform velocity $5 ms^{-1}$ through vacuum hits a block of mass $200kg$ with force $F_a$. The wall gets an acceleration of $0.5ms^{-2}$.
So the force acting on the block, i.e., $$m_{block}a_{block}=200×0.5 N=100N$$ Now I think the block will apply an equal reaction force on the ball $F_r$ which is equal to $ma$ as well, except that the mass of the ball is $5kg$, so the acceleration produced is $$a_{ball}=\frac {F_{r}}{m_{ball}} = \frac{-100}{5}=-20ms^{-2}$$
Now considering the equation of motion, we get $v=u+at$ the new velocity of the ball is: $$v=5-200t$$ right? So now if the ball is in vacuum, and energy loss due to heat and sound is $0$, If my above statements are correct, then the ball should have a retardation right? Like as soon as it touches the block, it slows down and eventually comes to rest. The retardation still acts on it so it now gains a velocity backwards. It will now keep moving backwards with an acceleration $200ms^{-2}$ right?
Now in practical situations, the ball will lose some energy on hitting the wall because of friction and heat. Now after the ball gets a negative acceleration, it will try to move back, but I have noticed that the ball won't move back much and fall down.
Is it because of gravity pulling it back, and resistance provided by air, which counteracts the movement of the ball and causes it to slow down and eventually stop?
Does this mean that it is not necessary that the object has to be compressible, as in a rubber ball, in order to bounce, as they follow Newton's Third Law anyways?
What would have happened if the ball was accelerating as well? Would the final motion of the ball be in the direction of the net acceleration?