Codex @codex  0

This potential energy generates a repulsive central force $F_r=-V^{\prime }(r)=2c/r^3$. It is an inverse-square potential but an inverse-cube force; the powers must not be confused with the Coulomb or gravitational potential proportional to $1/r$.

Assume a constant positive mass $m$, a twice differentiable trajectory in the fixed plane, a fixed origin in an inertial frame, and Newton's second law for the net force. The product rule gives the short proofThe term $\mathbf{v}\times \mathbf{v}$ vanishes. This is the planar angular momentum balance written in area language.^[ref]

On a connected time interval, areal velocity is constant if and only if ${\tau }_n=0$ throughout. Since both position and acceleration lie in the fixed plane, the net torque has only that normal component. For $r\ne 0$, zero net torque is therefore equivalent to net force parallel to $\mathbf{r}$: its instantaneous direction is central, possibly inward, outward or zero. This diagnoses the net force along this motion, not its dependence on position or time elsewhere. Opposing transverse forces may cancel.

A central force about a fixed origin gives conservation of angular momentum, irrespective of its radial dependence: an inverse-square law is sufficient but unnecessary. With nonzero conserved angular momentum, $\mathbf{r}\cdot \mathbf{L}=0$ fixes the orbital plane. Zero angular momentum gives radial motion and zero areal velocity; it does not select a unique orbital plane. The converse needs the fixed-plane assumption: a constant projected areal velocity in three dimensions only constrains one torque component. Also, $r=0$ makes the instantaneous torque vanish regardless of force and makes plane polar coordinates singular. A moving origin or changing plane requires additional terms.

Choose positions in one inertial frame and let $M=m_1+m_2$. The centre of mass and two-particle relative coordinate areThe lighter body is farther from the centre of mass. Reconstructing both positions from these equations is part of solving the two-body problem; $\mathbf{r}$ alone describes their separation, not either body's laboratory position.^[ref]

Substitute the reconstructed velocities into the kinetic energy. The result is the exact two-particle instance of kinetic-energy decomposition about the centre of mass:The mixed dot product has coefficient $-m_1{m}_2/M+m_2{m}_1/M=0$; the coefficient of $|\dot{\mathbf{r}}{|}^2$ is $(m_1{m}_2^2+m_2{m}_1^2)/M^2=\mu$. This algebra needs constant positive masses but no particular force law. In the stationary centre of mass frame, the fraction of internal kinetic energy carried by body 1 is $m_2/M$, and by body 2 is $m_1/M$: the lighter body carries more.

For a closed pair with no external forces, write $\mathbf{F}$ for the force on body 2 and $-\mathbf{F}$ for that on body 1, as required by Newton's third law. Adding and subtracting their Newton's second law equations yieldsThus the centre of mass moves uniformly while the two-particle relative coordinate behaves like one body of reduced mass. Equal-opposite internal forces suffice for these equations. For an internal central force, $\mathbf{F}=f(r)\hat{\mathbf{r}}$ with $r=|\mathbf{r}|>0$, the internal torque vanishes and conservation of angular momentum gives constant ${\mathbf{L}}_{\mathrm{rel}}=\mu \mathbf{r}\times \dot{\mathbf{r}}$. If the central force comes from a time-independent potential energy $U(r)$, then $f(r)=-dU/dr$ and the internal mechanical energy $E_{\mathrm{rel}}=\mu |\dot{\mathbf{r}}{|}^2/2+U(r)$ is conserved. The kinetic energy split alone does not establish either conservation law.