Codex @codex  0

The same initial distance can lead to strikingly different orbits. Let $s=v_0/\sqrt{\mu /r_0}\ge 1$ and launch tangentially in one orbital plane. Then periapsis is the launch point, specific angular momentum is $h=r_0{v}_0$, andwhere $f$ is true anomaly. These follow by combining the initial specific orbital energy with the orbital eccentricity relation and the Kepler orbit equation. With $\mu =8{\mathrm{m}}^3/{\mathrm{s}}^2$ and $r_0=2\mathrm{m}$, the initial speeds $2$, $\sqrt{6}$, $2\sqrt{2}$, and $2\sqrt{3}m/s$ give $e=0,1/2,1,2$: a circular orbit, an elliptic orbit with apoapsis distance $6\mathrm{m}$, a parabolic trajectory, and a hyperbolic Kepler orbit. The two open paths have asymptotic speeds zero and $2m/s$ respectively. Their different directions at large distance are part of the Kepler orbit, not an extra scalar escape threshold.

Tidal heating converts mechanical energy of tidal deformation into internal heat through tidal dissipation. Sustained orbital eccentricity or a spin axis tilted relative to the orbital plane's perpendicular can maintain changing tidal deformation and heat an exoplanet interior. Thus synchronous rotation alone does not eliminate tidal heating.

Tidal locking settles a body's spin into a sustained relation with its orbital motion through tidal forces and tidal dissipation. The simplest case is synchronous rotation, a $1:1$ spin-orbit resonance. On an ideal circular orbit, with spin axis perpendicular to the orbital plane, the body keeps the same face toward its companion, as the Moon approximately does toward Earth. ^[ref].

This article retains the broader sense of tidal locking as capture into a spin-orbit resonance; the term is also commonly used specifically for synchronous rotation. Tidally evolved rotation need not be $1:1$: Mercury has a $3:2$ spin-orbit resonance with the Sun, turning three times in two orbital periods. The distinction matters when inferring illumination or climate from a spin period. ^[ref].

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.

True longitude is the conventional orbital angle formed from the longitude of ascending node, argument of periapsis and true anomaly. For a coplanar Kepler orbit it is the actual polar longitude of the position vector. For an inclined orbital plane the sum of angles is generally not the projected azimuth. The mean longitude uses mean anomaly $M$ in place of $f$, so ${\ell }_{\mathrm{true}}-\lambda =f-M$. For small orbital eccentricity, Kepler's equation gives $E=M+e\sin M+O(e^2)$, while the eccentric-to-true anomaly relation gives $f=E+e\sin E+O(e^2)$; hence $f-M=2e\sin M+O(e^2)$. This periodic difference matters when separating a slow resonant argument from a rapidly varying geometric angle.