you provide 6 columns of data but refer to 7 columns in your text.
what you have not accounted for is the loss in velocity due to kinetic energy drain during collision which has been calculated as 8.9 times more than the loss of velocity due to conservation of momentum.
factor that into your column 6 (last but one column) and what is your collapse time? I suspect you will have refuted your own argument.
Utter nonsense. Kinetic energy lost was lost in the form of heat, you'll find that this amount almost exacly equals the difference in velocities squared time half the impacting mass. And the velocity used to calculate kinetic energy lost in inelastic collisions...is derived from the velocity found from the conservation of momentum equations. To have a different velocity due to kinetic energy drain as opposed to conservation of momentum (which you were big on not long ago) would violate the law of conservation of momentum.
Here's an idea. You wanted numbers. You got numbers. Now why don't you show me where the kinetic energy goes. Give me some numbers of your own devising. Or....admit you're in to a depth so far over your head your ears are popping.
And anytime you make some absurd reference assume you're being held to a real engineer's standards. We have to cite credible sources when we make an assertion, and the do the math to justify our use of said citation. You've been asked over and over and have failed.