I've decided to skip the additional research I have been doing while reading through A Unified Framework for Rigid Body Dynamics. After reading about a certain subject, I would read about the same subject in the various programming books I own (Game Physics, Real-Time Collision Detection, etc.). While this allowed me to gain a firmer understanding of the subject, I found that I would forget too much of the information by the time I got back to the thesis (or after learning the next subject).
Half of the day was spent in review for the most part. I was reading through chapter 2, which covers essential areas of physics. My experience with physics has been in 2D up till now, so I can't say that I didn't learn anything new though. In particular, finding a useful definition of "tensor" was surprisingly difficult. I eventually worked out that it is actually another way of saying array: a "2nd-order tensor" means a 2D array like A, a "1st-order tensor" means a 1D array like A and a "0-order tensor" is just a normal scalar. It pretty much continues on like this with 3rd-order etc.
Another useful tid-bit I learned was that "skew-symmetric matrix" is another name for "cross-product matrix". It might just be me, but I had some difficulty figuring out what a "cross-product matrix" was. Performing a quick Google search now that I know this, the answer is more obvious... Hindsight apparently is 20/20.
Chapter 2 also introduced the linear complementarity problem. While familiar with the name (particularly as "LCP"), I don't have very much knowledge of what it actually is. The introduction was very brief, but I came away from it being a little less scared of the ominous "LCP" which inevitably pops up when reading about physics simulation.
Chapter 3 was where things became really interesting for me. I wish I had known about this book last year when I was researching physics simulation! It's exactly what I was looking for: It discusses the different "modules" of a physics simulation, gives them names, and discusses some popular ways of using them (and gives them names as well). The "Explicit Time Step Method" is pretty similar to what I have been thinking of using, so I will likely use that one.