Because it applied all the force TO the ball, at first contact.
Which accelerated the ball.
Just like if you put a knife through an apple to cut it in 2, it doesn't magically stick itself back together after you take the knife away.
The force makes it move, it doesn't keep it moving.
If that force stopped acting on the ball immediately after contact, the ball would immediately stop moving.
No, it would stop accelerating.
All you are doing now is just repeatedly asserting the same delusional BS.
If it was still acting, it should feel as if you are still pushing on the ball, and if you pull your hand back, the ball should stop, and if the ball hit a wall, it should feel like you smashed your hand into the wall.
In reality, there is no longer a connection between the ball and your hand. Your hand has stopped acting on the ball, the force has stopped acting.
If it was the initial force dying out, why should the magnitude of that force make a difference?
Why shouldn't the force just magically die out after some time and cause the object to stop?
The initial force does NOT die out immediately, that's why more force makes the ball move faster, and for longer, than with LESS force applied to it. There's nothing else that accounts for the ball moving faster and for longer, right?
Try actually answering the question.
Why should the magnitude of the force matter at all?
Why shouldn't they all just die out after some time?
The ball moves faster because it received a larger impulse, and it takes longer to stop because it has more momentum which must be acted against to slow it down.
No need for any magical connected forces.
If your nonsense was true, cars would not have breaks. All you would do to stop is take your foot off and the car would rapidly come to a stop.
No, that is what YOU believe
No, that is a direct consequence of the delusional BS you have spouted.
If you want to claim the main cause of things stopping is because the force dies out, that means breaks on a car are useless as they do not significantly impact how long it takes the car to stop.
With my belief, which is based upon all the available evidence that I know of, the car needs a force to stop it moving, which can be either the forces associated with deforming the tyres, or the force of air resistance, or the force of friction on the countless components of the car that are rotating, or the force of the breaks. Because cars are designed to minimise losses, without breaks, it can continue for quite some time, while using the breaks will stop it quite quickly.
So my belief matches reality quite well.
Your belief directly contradicts it.
There is only ONE force which makes the object move in the first place, and KEEPS it in motion, afterwards, until it dies out. Force is simply applied energy. Energy does not stop acting on objects the instant it is gone, it acts on objects long afterwards, until it dies out.
Force is a particular type of applied energy. But energy doesn't act, at least not in that sense.
The force accelerates the object, increasing its kinetic energy.
In order to stop, that energy has to go somewhere.
For example, it could go to heat due to frictional forces.
But with your delusional BS, that energy just magically vanishes.
Your delusional BS doesn't even need that force to keep acting, as there is nothing trying to stop it, so why should it need to act?
When you apply one second of force to an object, and it moves at 20 mph hour, for a distance of 30 feet, and stops moving after 10 seconds, what happens to the object when you apply MORE force to the SAME object, for the SAME one second? Does it move at the same speed, over the same distance, for the same 10 seconds time?
No, of course not. It moves FASTER than before, over MORE distance than before, for a LONGER period of time, right?
Why?
If the force magically dies in 10 seconds, why shouldn't it just die in 10 seconds? Why should the magnitude of the applied force have any impact on how long it magically lives for?
If you apply a force twice as large to an object twice the mass, what should happen? Should it still die out after a longer time, or should it now magically die out in the same amount of time?
And of course, yet again you just ignore all the simple observations which so trivially demonstrate that you are spouting nonesnse.
If your nonsense was true, cars would not have breaks. All you would do to stop is take your foot off and the car would rapidly come to a stop.
If your nonsense was true, cars and other objects would not be designed to be aerodynamic.
If your nonsense was true, gliders would not exist.
Again, take a brick, slide it along a rough surface, like dirt; slide it along a smooth, low friction surface like smooth ice, place it on an object with wheels and roll that, throw it straight up with, and throw it horizontally.
Drive your car along a straight private road/open area reaching 100 km/hr, and then put it in neutral, and see how long it takes to coast to a stop.
Then repeat, but this time slam on the breaks and see how long it takes to stop.
You will see a different behaviour each time.
This shows it is another force acting to stop the object, not just the object magically stopping because the magical force which magically put it into magical motion magically died out and cause it to stop.