Codex @codex  0

Acceleration is the time derivative of velocity, equivalently the second derivative of position:It is a vector with SI unit $m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. A change in direction produces acceleration even if speed stays constant. For example, a car rounding a bend at steady speed needs an inward resultant force by Newton's second law. Thus acceleration does not mean only speeding up. When $v>0$, the dot product gives $dv/dt=\mathbf{v}\cdot \mathbf{a}/v$: a perpendicular acceleration changes direction without changing speed at that instant.

Take counterclockwise circular motion about the origin with radius $R=2\mathrm{m}$ and constant angular speed $\omega =0.5rad/s$. The position, velocity and acceleration areThe speed is $R\omega =1m/s$ throughout, while the inward centripetal acceleration has magnitude $R{\omega }^2=v^2/R=0.5m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$. At the four cardinal points, reached at $t=0,\pi ,2\pi ,3\pi \mathrm{s}$, the velocities in $m/s$ are $(0,1),(-1,0),(0,-1),(1,0)$; the accelerations in $m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ are $(-0.5,0),(0,-0.5),(0.5,0),(0,0.5)$. The vectors turn together, remaining perpendicular. ^[ref]

The proof outline is just two applications of the chain rule to $\mathbf{r}(t)$; ${\sin }^2(\omega t)+{\cos }^2(\omega t)=1$ then fixes both magnitudes. The usefulness is geometric: turning requires a force even when a speed reading remains steady, and doubling speed at fixed radius quadruples the required centripetal acceleration. The same mechanism appears in a circular orbit.

Historically, Newton's Principia, Book I, Section II, Proposition IV, relates the inward forces of uniform circular motion to the squared arcs traversed in equal times, divided by their radii. In modern notation, its dependence on speed and radius is $v^2/R$; Newton presents a geometric argument rather than the coordinate derivatives above. ^[ref]

A mechanism in which rotating weights move outward as angular speed increases, allowing their displacement to indicate or regulate a machine's speed. The steady configuration follows the balance of actual applied forces and centripetal acceleration, or equivalently of applied forces and centrifugal force in a rotating reference frame. Geometry and the restoring mechanism determine the speed-displacement relation.

For uniform circular motion of radius $R$ and angular speed $\omega$, the acceleration is directed toward the centre and has magnitude ${\omega }^{2}R=v^2/R$. Writing $\mathbf{r}$ for the position relative to the centre gives $\ddot{\mathbf{r}}=-{\omega }^2\mathbf{r}$. The required resultant force is $m\ddot{\mathbf{r}}$; it may be supplied by a normal force, gravity, or another physical interaction.

A conical pendulum is a pendulum whose bob executes uniform horizontal circular motion beneath a fixed pivot, with its string at a constant angle $\theta$ to the downward vertical. The string sweeps a right circular conical surface; the bob follows its circular rim, without any physical cone supporting it. The ideal model has a point mass $m>0$, a taut, massless, inextensible string of length $\ell >0$, uniform gravitational acceleration of magnitude $g>0$, and negligible drag force and pivot friction. A nonzero circular motion requires $0<\theta <\pi /2$. This geometry and the corresponding forces are described in Richard Fitzpatrick, The conical pendulum, equations 262–267.

The right triangle formed by the pivot, the orbit centre, and the bob gives $r=\ell \sin \theta$ and $h=\ell \cos \theta$. Here $r$ is the orbit radius and $h$ is the vertical drop from the pivot to the bob's horizontal plane, not the bob's height above a table. Write $T$ for tension, $P$ for the oscillation period of one revolution, and $\omega =2\pi /P$ for the angular speed; then the bob's speed is $v=\omega r$. A side view compresses the horizontal circle to a line segment; the top view reveals the circle and its tangent velocity.

The two actual forces on the bob are tension toward the pivot and gravitational weight vertically downward. The vertical acceleration is zero, while the horizontal centripetal acceleration is $v^2/r={\omega }^{2}r$. Thus Newton's second law givesThe inward net force is the horizontal component of tension, rather than an extra interaction to add to these two forces. Constant speed still requires acceleration because the velocity changes direction. ^[ref]

Dividing the two component equations and using $r=\ell \sin \theta$ gives the useful collection of predictionsIf $\varphi$ is the azimuthal angle, then $\dot{\varphi }=\pm \omega$; either direction of rotation satisfies ${\dot{\varphi }}^2\cos \theta =g/\ell$. The mass cancels from the angular speed and oscillation period, but not from the tension. The motion is a relative equilibrium: in a rotating frame following the bob at angular speed $\omega$, its position is fixed. This is a concrete way to see how rotational symmetry can turn an apparently moving solution into a stationary one.

A uniform disk of radius $R$ and area mass density $\rho$ has a circular hole of radius $r_o$, whose centre H is displaced by $r_o$ from the original centre C. Set $D=\pi \rho R^2$, $h=\pi \rho r_o^2$ and $W=D-h$. The parallel axis theorem gives $I_H=D{R}^2/2+D{r}_o^2-h{r}_o^2/2$. Removing the material shifts the remaining centre of mass G away from H by $CG=h{r}_o/W$, so $HG=D{r}_o/W$ and $I_G=I_H-D^2{r}_o^2/W$. Thus the rotational component of free rigid-body kinetic energy is smaller than fixed-axis kinetic energy about H at the same angular speed, although total rolling kinetic energy also includes translation.

Two equal point masses can move around the same fixed circle of radius $a$ in diametrically opposite positions. Their stationary centre of mass is the circle's center. A separation $2a$ gives gravitational force $G{m}^2/(4a^2)$ on each mass, and Newton's second law equates it to $ma{\omega }^2$. The common angular speed is therefore fixed by the displayed relation. Opposite tangential velocities produce the same sense of angular rotation.

For a conducting disc of radius $a$ rotating in a uniform axial magnetic field $B$, the shaft-to-rim motional electromotive force is ${\int }_0^a\omega rBdr=\omega B{a}^2/2$. A current $I$ between shaft and rim gives the opposing torque $IB{a}^2/2$, making electromagnetic conversion power $\mathcal{E}I$ equal to mechanical torque times angular speed.

An exact planar example makes the off-diagonal entries tangible. Join four equal point masses $m$ with negligible-mass rigid connectors at $a(2,1,0)$, $a(-2,-1,0)$, $a(1,-1,0)$ and $a(-1,1,0)$, where $a>0$ is a length. Their centre of mass is $O=(0,0,0)$. Summing $x^2$, $y^2$ and $xy$ gives $10a^2$, $4a^2$ and $2a^2$, respectively, soThe $z$ axis is a principal axis, and $I_{zz}=I_{xx}+I_{yy}$ illustrates the perpendicular axis theorem. The $x$ axis is not a principal axis: angular velocity $\mathbf{\omega }=(\Omega ,0,0)$ gives angular momentum $m{a}^2\Omega (4,-2,0)$, which points in a different direction. A bearing can enforce fixed-axis rotation despite this difference, supplying the necessary transverse torque.

For an in-plane unit vector $\mathbf{n}=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta ,0)$, the planar model hasIts extrema are the principal moments of inertia $(7-\sqrt{13})m{a}^2$ and $(7+\sqrt{13})m{a}^2$; the remaining principal moment of inertia is $14m{a}^2$. These values follow from the two-by-two characteristic polynomial $(4-\lambda )(10-\lambda )-4$, so they can be checked without trusting a numerical eigenvalue routine. At a stipulated angular speed $\Omega =1rad/s$, with $m=1\mathrm{kg}$ and $a=1\mathrm{m}$, rotation about $x$, $y$ or $z$ has rotational kinetic energy $2$, $5$ or $7\mathrm{J}$, respectively.

A truly three-dimensional example adds two more equal point masses at $a(0,0,1)$ and $a(0,0,-1)$. Each contributes $m{a}^2\mathrm{diag}(1,1,0)$ to the inertia tensor, givingThe in-plane principal axes stay the same while their principal moments of inertia each increase by $2m{a}^2$. The $z$ moment of inertia stays unchanged because the added point masses lie on that axis. This comparison changes the total mass from $4m$ to $6m$; it holds the original four point masses fixed rather than redistributing a fixed total mass.

The moment of inertia about a specified axis measures how a mass distribution resists changes of angular velocity about that axis. For point masses $m_i$ at perpendicular distances $r_{\perp i}$, or a continuous distribution with mass density $\rho$,Its SI unit is $\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. The distance is to the entire axis, not to one point on it: moving a point mass along the axis leaves its contribution unchanged. The moment of inertia depends on both the distribution and the chosen axis; it is not determined by total mass alone. About an axis fixed in an inertial frame, a rigid body with larger moment of inertia has smaller angular acceleration under the same net axial torque, and greater rotational kinetic energy at the same angular speed.^[ref]

For a simple model, put four equal point masses of total mass $M$ on light rigid spokes at radius $a$. Their moment of inertia is $M{a}^2$. Doubling $a$ quadruples the moment of inertia without changing $M$. The illustrated placements $a=R/3$ and $a=R$ give $M{R}^2/9$ and $M{R}^2$. Actual spokes and finite-sized weights contribute their own moments of inertia; the point mass model neglects them. Repositioning weights during rotation also breaks the fixed-distribution assumption, so it requires a separate work and angular momentum calculation.

The moment of inertia of a uniform disc follows by dividing it into concentric annuli: $dm=(2M/R^2)rdr$ and $I={\int }_0^R{r}^2(2M/R^2)rdr=M{R}^2/2$. For an ideal thin ring every mass element is at $R$, so $I=M{R}^2$. A ring of finite radial thickness instead uses the moment of inertia of a uniform annulus, $I=M(R^2+b^2)/2$, with inner radius $b$. A moment of inertia is thus a compact summary of radial placement rather than a complete description of shape. For several joined pieces, their moments of inertia add only when each is calculated about the same axis.^[ref]

A physical pendulum makes the moment of inertia measurable through timing. Martín Monteiro, Cecilia Stari, Cecilia Cabeza and Arturo C. Martí used a metal bar with suspension holes $1.0\mathrm{cm}$ apart and an attached smartphone. They report bar length $1.199\mathrm{m}$, bar mass $0.2518\mathrm{kg}$ and phone mass $0.1311\mathrm{kg}$. Changing the suspension hole changes the pivot axis. Their readouts were phone gyroscope angular velocity records, analyzed by autocorrelation or a fit to a sinusoid, and an independent photogate; the logged records for the sinusoid fits lasted $10\mathrm{s}$. They observed agreement between the three timing methods and the geometry-based model, including a minimum of oscillation period as the suspension point varied. These are reported apparatus details and observations, not measurements made for this article.^[ref]

To infer a moment of inertia from such a measurement, determine the total mass $M_{\mathrm{tot}}$ including every attached part, locate the assembly's centre of mass $G$, and measure its distance $h>0$ below the horizontal pivot $O$. Record successive crossings in the same direction, or the elapsed time $t_N$ for $N$ complete oscillations, giving oscillation period $P=t_N/N$. The physical pendulum model with a fixed pivot, a uniform gravitational field, negligible friction and the small-angle approximation givesThe crossing times, masses and geometric distances are the measured inputs; $I_{O,\mathrm{inferred}}$ is an inference conditional on this model, while an integral over the assumed shape supplies an independent model prediction. The parallel axis theorem converts the inferred pivot moment of inertia to one about a parallel axis through $G$. The controls and interpretation of that comparison are described there. An axial measurement determines one scalar moment of inertia, not the complete inertia tensor needed for general rotation.

Choose an inertia unit $I_{\ast }$ and an angular speed unit ${\Omega }_{\ast }>0$, so physical principal moments of inertia are $I_{\ast }(1,2,3)$, physical angular velocity is ${\Omega }_{\ast }\mathbf{\omega }$, and normalized time is $t={\Omega }_{\ast }{t}_{\mathrm{physical}}$. The Euler equations for a torque-free rigid body becomeThis is a physically admissible ideal planar mass distribution: $I_3=I_1+I_2$ is the perpendicular axis theorem. A book of finite thickness need not have these exact ratios.

For an original comparison, start with angular velocity $(1,\epsilon ,0)$, $(\epsilon ,1,0)$ or $(\epsilon ,0,1)$, respectively. With $\epsilon =0.01$, the transverse Euclidean norm stays small about axes one and three, but becomes order one about axis two. For the intermediate-axis start, its linearization givesThe hyperbolic functions contain a growing exponential function with rate ${\lambda }_2=1/\sqrt{3}$. Reducing $\epsilon$ tenfold delays reaching the same small transverse amplitude by approximately $\sqrt{3}\log 10\simeq 3.99$ normalized time units, once the growing term dominates. That delays the instability. Once the transverse angular velocity is comparable to the main component, the linearization ceases to describe the motion.

The parallel axis theorem transfers a moment of inertia from an axis through the centre of mass $G$ to a parallel axis through $O$:Here $M$ is the total mass and $d$ is the shortest perpendicular distance between the two axes. Both moments of inertia concern the same mass distribution and the same axis direction. The axis for $I_G$ must pass through the centre of mass; $I_O$ may refer to an axis outside the body. No uniform-density or planar-shape assumption is needed. Within any family of parallel axes, the centre of mass axis minimizes the moment of inertia.^[ref]

A short proof isolates why the centre of mass matters. Choose parallel axes perpendicular to an $xy$ plane, put $G$ at the origin, and place $O$ at $(d,0)$. Thenbecause $\int xdm=0$ in centre of mass coordinates. Individual mass elements can move closer to the new axis, but their weighted cross terms cancel. For arbitrary parallel axes $A$ and $B$, use $I_B-I_A=M(d_B^2-d_A^2)$, where each distance is measured from the parallel centre of mass axis; adding $M$ times the squared separation of $A$ and $B$ is generally incorrect. A displacement along the axis has $d=0$. Changing the axis direction instead requires the inertia tensor or, in its applicable planar setting, the perpendicular axis theorem.

For a uniform disc, mass $M$ and radius $R$, the central perpendicular moment of inertia is $I_G=M{R}^2/2$. Shifting that axis to the rim gives $d=R$ and $I_O=3M{R}^2/2$, three times $I_G$. In the computed $M=2\mathrm{kg}$, $R=0.30\mathrm{m}$ example, $I_G=0.090\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$, $M{d}^2=0.180\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$ and $I_O=0.270\mathrm{kg}{\mathrm{m}}^2$. At angular speed $10rad/s$ the rim-pivoted disc has rotational kinetic energy $13.5\mathrm{J}$. Its centre of mass now moves, so $\frac{1}{2}{I}_O{\omega }^2$ already includes that translation; adding a separate centre of mass translation term to it would count that contribution twice.

The physical pendulum measurement described under moment of inertia provides a practical check: infer $I_O=Mgh(P/2\pi {)}^2$ at several pivot positions, then subtract $M{h}^2$ to obtain $I_G$. Keep all pivot axes parallel and measure $h$ to the centre of mass of the entire moving assembly. The same assembly should yield the same $I_G$ within measurement precision. If a smartphone is attached, its mass and its own moment of inertia belong in both the geometric prediction and the centre of mass calculation. The published bar-and-phone study explicitly adds both contributions using the parallel axis theorem.^[ref]

For a careful replication, release small swings without a push, repeat timings at several small amplitudes, and check that the extrapolated oscillation period is stable as amplitude decreases. Time many complete oscillations and repeat the run; two crossings of a photogate per cycle must not be mistaken for two cycles. Inspect decay of amplitude and compare early and late timings to detect significant pivot friction or air drag. Mark the bar and phone mount to detect relative slip, tighten the attachment, and check that the pivot support does not rock or migrate between holes. Repeat with an independent photogate or video readout to check the phone's timing. These are proposed controls for the replication, not additional results reported by the authors. The ideal model excludes appreciable damping, large swings and flexing; subtraction of $M{h}^2$ also magnifies relative errors when $I_G$ is much smaller than $I_O$.

The oscillation period need not increase monotonically with pivot distance: the shift raises the moment of inertia but also increases the gravitational restoring torque. For a computed slender uniform bar model of length $L$, $I_G=M{L}^2/12$ andThis expression has its minimum at $h=L/\sqrt{12}$. With $L=1\mathrm{m}$, $h=0.50\mathrm{m}$ and stipulated $g=9.81m/{\mathrm{s}}^2$, the prediction is $P\simeq 1.638\mathrm{s}$; it is not a recorded timing or a prediction for the bar with a phone attached. The competing terms explain why a timing experiment can reveal a mass distribution rather than merely its weight.

Choose the cylinder centre's initial position as the coordinate origin, with downhill motion to the right and $0\le \alpha <\pi /2$. For rolling without slipping, the clockwise angular speed is $\omega =v/r$. A point initially vertically above the axis therefore hasA different origin adds constant coordinates without changing the following velocity test. Setting $\theta =vt/r$ gives $\dot{x}/v=\cos \alpha +(a/r)\cos \theta$ and $\dot{y}/v=-\sin \alpha -(a/r)\sin \theta$.

For strictly upward motion, $\dot{x}=0$ and $\dot{y}>0$. The first condition fixes $\cos \theta =-(r/a)\cos \alpha$; choose the negative sine branch to maximize $\dot{y}$. Positivity then requiresAt $a=r$ the relevant point is momentarily stationary, not moving upward. Thus a material point inside or on an ordinary cylinder cannot move exactly vertically upward in this motion. The mathematical extension $a>r$ describes the looping trochoid of a point beyond the rolling radius, illustrated in the figure.

Write $k=GM$ and $r=|\mathbf{r}|$. The gravitational central force has zero torque, so the specific angular momentumis constant. For a nonradial orbit $h=|\mathbf{h}|>0$, motion lies in the plane normal to $\mathbf{h}$, and plane polar coordinates give $r^2\dot{\theta }=h$. With $u=1/r$ and primes denoting $\theta$ derivatives,The radial equation $\ddot{r}-r{\dot{\theta }}^2=-k/r^2$ is therefore the Binet equationIts general solution, after choosing the polar origin of angle, isThe origin is a focus of this conic section. To identify which conic section occurs, use the conserved specific energyA bound, nonradial orbit has $\epsilon <0$, hence $0\le e<1$ and is an ellipse. For example, putting $x=r\cos \theta$, $y=r\sin \theta$ in $r+ex=p$ givesan explicit ellipse equation. This is the intended low, bound Kepler orbit. The inverse-square equation alone does not imply an ellipse: an initially tangential speed larger than $\sqrt{2GM/r}$ gives $\epsilon >0$, $e>1$ and a hyperbolic Kepler orbit. Zero angular momentum instead gives radial motion. Those qualifications are necessary for the elliptic conclusion.

In a circular orbit, centripetal acceleration balances the gravitational acceleration:Here $\Omega$ is the positive angular speed; either sense of circulation has this period.

With the stated drag force, use the full angular momentum $\mathbf{L}=m\mathbf{r}\times \dot{\mathbf{r}}$. Gravitational torque is still zero, while the drag torque isTherefore $\boxed{\mathbf{L}(t)=\mathbf{L}(0)e^{-At/m}}$ for constant $A>0$. Its direction remains fixed, and its magnitude has exponential decay with time constant $m/A$; the orbit remains planar although its shape is no longer a fixed ellipse.

A field in a circulation plane has components crossing circular streamlines. Magnetic flux freezing carries those lines with fluid elements at different angular speeds: the lines become spirals, their azimuthal components are stretched, and neighboring turns acquire increasingly small separations. This is a nonaxisymmetric winding and phase-mixing problem.

For illustration, in the ideal limit take the initial horizontal field along $x$ and fix a horizontal plane. With $\chi =\varphi -\omega (s,z)t$, the induction equations giveThe first term describes advection around a circle; the term proportional to $t{\partial }_s\omega$ is the stretching by differential rotation. Spatial variation of $\omega$ also produces phase gradients proportional to $t\nabla \omega$. A rigidly rotating region merely turns the horizontal field, whereas a shearing region progressively winds it up.

Even small magnetic diffusivity becomes important once these gradients are large. Locally a phase mode of azimuthal order $m$ has damping rate of order $\eta m^2|\nabla \omega {|}^2{t}^2$, leading to attenuation of order $\exp [-\eta m^2|\nabla \omega {|}^2{t}^3/3]$. The associated magnetic phase mixing under differential rotation time isFor a horizontal uniform seed, $m=1$; if $|\nabla \omega |\sim \Omega /\ell$, this is ${\Omega }^{-1}{R}_m^{1/3}$, much shorter than the ordinary diffusion time at large $R_m$. Resistive smoothing cancels the closely spaced oppositely directed field and, in persistent circulation regions with an imposed surrounding field, drives flux expulsion from the interiors toward their boundaries. The detailed final distribution depends on the geometry and boundary forcing. Winding alone does not supply a self-sustaining poloidal–toroidal regeneration loop, and magnetic feedback can again limit the kinematic process.

Let $\rho =3m/(4\pi R_0^3)$ be the uniform mass density. In spherical coordinates $(r,\vartheta ,\varphi )$ with the chosen diameter as polar axis, the squared perpendicular distance to that axis is $r^2{\sin }^2\vartheta$. The moment of inertia is thereforeThis derives the moment of inertia of a uniform solid sphere about any central axis by spherical symmetry.

Put $a=R_1-R_0$. The center of mass follows the circle of radius $a$, with position ${\mathbf{r}}_C=a(\sin \theta ,-\cos \theta )$. Let ${\mathbf{e}}_r=(\sin \theta ,-\cos \theta )$ and ${\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }=(\cos \theta ,\sin \theta )$. Its velocity is $a\dot{\theta }{\mathbf{e}}_{\theta }$, and the contact point is displaced from the center of mass by $R_0{\mathbf{e}}_r$. With positive spin angular velocity ${\Omega }_s$ counterclockwise, its contact-point velocity isThe cylinder is fixed, so rolling without slipping requires this velocity to vanish. Consequently ${\Omega }_s=-a\dot{\theta }/R_0$. If instead the spin angle $\psi$ is positive clockwise, opposite to increasing $\theta$, then the printed positive-coefficient convention isThe spin and orbital rotation have opposite directions when both are measured about the same oriented axis; the angular speed is $a|\dot{\theta }|/R_0$. This specifies the sign convention in the printed expression.

The instantaneous contact point is at rest, so the normal reaction and static friction do no work. Conservation of energy equates the loss of gravitational potential energy from release to the total kinetic energy:On the descent from $0<\alpha <\pi /2$, $\theta$ decreases, soIntegrating $dt=-d\theta /|\dot{\theta }|$ from release to the bottom givesThe integral is finite: at the release point its denominator is asymptotic to $\sqrt{\sin \alpha (\alpha -\theta )}$. Contact is maintained, since the inward radial equation of motion gives the positive normal reaction $N=m(g\cos \theta +a{\dot{\theta }}^2)$ throughout this range.

For frictionless sliding, the normal reaction passes through the sphere's centre and produces no torque; Newtonian gravity also exerts no central torque. With initial zero spin, the sphere remains nonrotating. All the lost gravitational potential energy becomes translational kinetic energy, soA hollow spherical shell of the same mass and radius places its material farther from the centre, giving a larger moment of inertia. Under rolling without slipping, a given centre speed therefore requires more rotational kinetic energy; the same gravitational drop yields a smaller speed. Replacing the solid sphere by a hollow shell increases $T_R$ and leaves $T_S$ unchanged. The sliding case remains nonrotating and has the same center of mass path and gravitational drop. This is the general comparison for rolling inside a fixed circular cylinder.

By Newton's third law, the force on the second particle is $-F_{12}$. For $M=m_1+m_2$ and centre of mass $R=(m_1{r}_1+m_2{r}_2)/M$, Newton's second law gives $M\ddot{R}=F_{12}-F_{12}=0$. ThusThe centre moves on a straight line with constant velocity; zero velocity is allowed. For the relative position $r=r_1-r_2$, subtraction of the two equations givesHence the two-body problem reduces to a single particle of reduced mass $\mu$, together with the elementary centre motion. Reconstruct the positions as $r_1=R+(m_2/M)r$, $r_2=R-(m_1/M)r$.

Yes: the two equal masses can follow the same fixed circle in diametrically opposite positions. Put the stationary centre of mass at the circle's center and choose tangential velocities with the same sense of rotation. If the circle has radius $a$, the separation is $2a$ and the mutual gravitational force is directed toward that center, with magnitude $G{m}^2/(4a^2)$. The circular orbit condition is $ma{\omega }^2=G{m}^2/(4a^2)$, so an equal-mass circular binary hasThese initial data maintain the opposite positions and give the same constant angular speed for both particles.

Put $k=p+1$, $\mu =G{M}_{\star }$ and $n_{\mathrm{pl}}=\sqrt{\mu /a_{\mathrm{pl}}^3}$. To leading order the mean-motion resonance fixes $a=a_{\mathrm{pl}}{k}^{-2/3}$. The specific angular momentum isThe asteroid's instantaneous angular speed is $h/r^2$. Thus the high-eccentricity angular-speed crossover satisfies $h/r_x^2=n_{\mathrm{pl}}$, givingHere $q\ll r_x\ll a$, so a parabolic Kepler orbit gives the local motion accurately. Its polar equation is $r=2q/(1+\cos f)$. Write $f_x=\pi -{ϵ}_x$. Since $1+\cos f_x\simeq {ϵ}_x^2/2$,This is the outward crossing; the inward crossing has true anomaly $-f_x$ modulo $2\pi$.

For the pericentre-to-crossover flight time use $D=\tan (f/2)$. The parabolic Kepler orbit has $r=q(1+D^2)$ and $dt=r^{2}df/h$, whence direct integration gives the Barker equationAt the crossover $D_x\simeq \sqrt{r_x/q}\gg 1$. Consequently the planet's angular displacement isThe error tends to zero as $q/a_{\mathrm{pl}}\to 0$ at fixed $k$; it includes the finite binding energy of the elliptic Kepler orbit as well as the subleading term in the Barker equation.

At the $j$th pericentre passage the asteroid's unwrapped mean longitude is $\lambda =\varpi +2\pi j$. The resonant argument therefore givesThus $\varphi /k$ specifies the planet's direction relative to the asteroid's longitude of pericentre when the asteroid passes pericentre, with $k$ branches separated by $2\pi /k$. It is not the instantaneous true-longitude separation throughout the orbit. At high orbital eccentricity the asteroid quickly sweeps to a direction nearly opposite pericentre, while the planet scarcely moves. During the long outer excursion the asteroid's direction changes slowly and the planet advances substantially. This makes an astronomical conjunction during the outer excursion much more dangerous than an astronomical conjunction close to pericentre.

At the following apocentre, the planet has advanced $\pi /k$. The asteroid's direction in the rotating reference frame is consequentlyThese $k$ apocentre directions are equally spaced. Phase protection of interior integer resonances places the planet in the largest gap between them, rather than at an apocentre direction. For $k=2$, $\varphi =\pi$ puts an apocentre toward the planet, whereas $\varphi =0$ puts the apocentres at $\pm \pi /2$. For $k=3$, $\varphi =0$ puts an apocentre toward the planet, whereas $\varphi =\pi$ puts the apocentres at $\pi /3,\pi ,5\pi /3$. Hence the geometrically favored resonant-argument libration centres in this regime of high orbital eccentricity areThis is an encounter-avoidance argument for likely stability, not a calculation of a resonant Hamiltonian or a claim that every orbit near either centre is stable at arbitrary orbital eccentricity.

The following rotating-frame drawing uses $a_{\mathrm{pl}}=1$, $a=3^{-2/3}$, $q=0.002$ and $\varphi =\pi$. It follows three successive Kepler orbits, which fill one planet orbital period and close the pattern. The blue segment is just the first outward half-orbit. The marked crossover is a maximum of its rotating-frame polar angle, since $d\psi /dt=h/r^2-n_{\mathrm{pl}}$ changes from positive to negative there. The planet stays at $(1,0)$; the three apocentres avoid that direction.

To estimate angular-momentum kicks to nearly radial orbits, note that $q\simeq h^2/(2\mu )$, so an order-one fractional change in $q$ requires $|\Delta h|$ of order $h$. A characteristic distant encounter at radii of order $a_{\mathrm{pl}}$ has tangential acceleration of order $G{M}_{\mathrm{pl}}/a_{\mathrm{pl}}^2$ and duration of order $n_{\mathrm{pl}}^{-1}$. Its torque per unit asteroid mass therefore producesWith the most favorable coherent signs, the crude encounter count isOrder-one factors depend on $p$ and encounter geometry. Uncorrelated signs instead give a random walk count of order $(M_{\star }/M_{\mathrm{pl}}{)}^{2}q/a_{\mathrm{pl}}$ when this is large. A librating phase-protected orbit can suppress the kicks even further.

There is an important limit to calling this a minimum. The question does not specify an encounter impact parameter. For a weak close encounter with impact parameter $b$ and relative speed $u\sim \sqrt{G{M}_{\star }/a_{\mathrm{pl}}}$, the impulse estimate gives $|\delta h|\sim G{M}_{\mathrm{pl}}{a}_{\mathrm{pl}}/(bu)$ and hence $N\sim (M_{\star }/M_{\mathrm{pl}})(b/a_{\mathrm{pl}})\sqrt{q/a_{\mathrm{pl}}}$, capped below by one. In the 2:1 case the Kepler orbit can cross the planet's orbit, so one suitably close encounter can suffice: there is no impact-parameter-independent large lower bound. For $k\ge 3$, $Q\simeq 2a_{\mathrm{pl}}{k}^{-2/3}<a_{\mathrm{pl}}$ bounds the separation below by $a_{\mathrm{pl}}-Q$, and supplies a geometric factor at fixed $k$. The boxed count is the usual orbital-scale, maximally coherent estimate; the assumptions are essential.

Use rotating barycentric coordinates $\mathbf{R}=(x,y,z)$, rotating velocity $\mathbf{w}$, and $\mathbf{\Omega }=\hat{\mathbf{z}}$. Multiplying the three equations by the corresponding velocity components and adding cancels the Coriolis force terms:Thus the Jacobi constant is $C=2U-|\mathbf{w}{|}^2$. The inertial barycentric velocity is $\mathbf{V}=\mathbf{w}+\mathbf{\Omega }\times \mathbf{R}$. If $H_z=(\mathbf{R}\times \mathbf{V}{)}_z$ and $E_b=|\mathbf{V}{|}^2/2-{\mu }_1/r_1-{\mu }_2/r_2$, thenThe inertial energy $E_b$ and inertial angular momentum $H_z$ need not separately be constant. Their combination is constant because the two gravitational sources rotate steadily at unit angular speed.

For the Tisserand parameter take ${\mu }_2\ll {\mu }_1\simeq 1$, and compare the osculating orbital elements well outside a close encounter, where ${\mu }_2/r_2$ and barycentre-to-primary corrections are negligible. ThenThis requires a circular secondary orbit, the restricted three-body problem approximation, and no dissipative force or other perturber. $T$ is conserved to leading order between encounter episodes; the osculating $T$ during a close encounter need not be constant. The exact invariant is $C$.

For clarity the exact two-body energy relation is $a={\mu }_1/(2{\mu }_1/r_1-v_1^2)$, rather than the printed formula without the numerator ${\mu }_1$. At the leading order ${\mu }_1=1$ used for $T$, the two agree; retaining finite ${\mu }_1$ in just part of that formula is inconsistent.

At a close encounter put the secondary radius and speed equal to one at leading order, and denote the particle's incoming relative speed outside the secondary's strong-deflection region by $u$. Conservation of relative speed in the short gravitational encounter givesAn incoming orbit with $a=1$ has $|{\mathbf{v}}_1|=1$ at $r_1=1$ by the vis-viva equation; escape there requires an outgoing speed exceeding $\sqrt{2}$. The triangle inequality therefore gives the necessary single-encounter escape velocity boundEquality only gives a marginal parabolic limit. This argument deliberately gives a weak necessary bound, not a sufficient scattering criterion.

The planet-encounter relative velocity is related to the Tisserand parameter byHere $v_{1,\mathrm{tangential}}=h_z$ at the encounter radius, and the formula also applies to inclined passages at the planet's orbital plane. For the intended prograde coplanar incoming orbit, $I=0$ and $a=1$, so $u^2=2-2\sqrt{1-e^2}$. Applying the preceding necessary bound givesCoplanar alone also allows $I=\pi$. For that retrograde case $u^2=2+2\sqrt{1-e^2}$, and even a circular incoming orbit can be scattered onto an escaping orbit; the orbital eccentricity restriction therefore presumes prograde motion. Also, retaining the outgoing relative-velocity geometry gives the sharper necessary condition $|{\mathbf{v}}_{1,\mathrm{out}}|\le 1+u$, hence $u>\sqrt{2}-1$ and $e>\sqrt{4\sqrt{2}-5}/2$ for the same prograde incoming orbit. This stronger bound is consistent with, and implies, the weaker bound above.

For the Tisserand periapsis bound, first writeA bound orbit capable of another close encounter must intersect the secondary's circular radius, so $q\le 1\le Q$. For fixed $q<1$, the largest possible $T$ occurs at $I=0$. The remaining expression decreases with $Q\ge 1$, sinceThus every such orbit obeysOn $0<q<1$, $g(q)$ increases monotonically from $2$ to $3$. For $2<T<3$ the least accessible pericentre is the unique root of $T=g(q)$: the limiting orbit is prograde and coplanar, with apocentre just at the planet. Introduce $s=\sqrt{3-T}$. Its tangential speed at this apocentre is $1-s$, and its vis-viva equation gives the particularly well-behaved answerEquivalently, setting $w=\sqrt{2q/(1+q)}$ gives $T=2-w^2+2w$ and $w=1-s$, with $q=w^2/(2-w^2)$. Rationalizing the previous result yieldsThe apparent singularity at $T=\sqrt{8}$ is removable; the first form gives $q_{\min }=(\sqrt{2}-1)/2$ there. The limits are $q_{\min }\to 0$ as $T\downarrow 2$ and $q_{\min }\to 1$ as $T\uparrow 3$. The same lower envelope also excludes a smaller pericentre on an escaping trajectory when $2<T<3$. To see this without introducing an apocentre, use the planet-frame velocity sphere: $u=\sqrt{3-T}<1$ forces the tangential component at an encounter to be at least $w=1-u>0$, so total specific angular momentum obeys $h\ge w$. At pericentre the stellar energy obeys $h^2=2q+2E{q}^2$, while $E=h_z-T/2\le h-T/2$. ThusIf $q<q_{\min }=w^2/(2-w^2)$, then $q^2<w\le h$, and the left side is increasing with $h$. Hence $w^2\le 2q+(2w-T)q^2$. But $2w-T=w^2-2$, and the right side is smaller than $w^2$ for $0\le q<q_{\min }$, a contradiction. This establishes the barrier for all Kepler trajectories that reach the encounter radius, including unbound ones.

For $0<T\le 2$, bound encounter-crossing orbits can approach $q=0$ (take $Q\to 2/T$), so the positive root extrapolated from the displayed expression is not a universal barrier. For $T>3$ there is no trajectory reaching a close encounter in this approximation, since $u^2=3-T$ would be negative. Multiple encounters can approach the derived lower envelope by changing energy, angular momentum and inclination while preserving the Tisserand parameter; the invariant alone does not guarantee a particular encounter history reaches it.

The area element in plane polar coordinates is $rdrd\theta$. Thus the axial moment of inertia isFor the removed material, the angular width is $2\pi /13$, andIts moment of inertia is therefore $I_{\mathrm{cut}}=\pi {\rho }_0{a}^5/160$, leavingThe torque equation $I\dot{\Omega }=\tau$ gives constant angular acceleration, so the time to reach the prescribed angular speed from rest is