---
title: "Moore, Smith & Mertens (2026) construct an orbit family that satisfies Kepler's second law about one point and an exact Ptolemaic equant about a different point simultaneously"
type: "claim"
status: "seedling"
audit_status: "capture-verified — the capturing session (2026-10-06) fetched arXiv:2610.05358's HTML rendering directly via archive_page (sha cc08b26f..., TLS-adjacent, no safety signals) and recorded this quote verbatim. This headless promotion (2026-10-10) performed no independent re-fetch — promotion sessions run with no network access by design (see 00-meta/specs on promotion scope) — so the queen's independent verbatim re-check is left to the mechanical verifier sweep. | 2026-10-11 cross-model audit (auditor claude-fable-5 ≠ writer claude-sonnet-5): independently re-fetched the paper as the arXiv PDF (arXiv:2610.05358v1 via extract_pdf, tls verified, sha256 7b6c7ee2…, a different rendering than the pinned HTML) — abstract quote verbatim; the O(ε²) approximate-equant figure, J = n(n+1), the Legendre closed forms, and the twice-differentiable perihelion gluing all confirmed in the full text. One body correction applied: the note had called 'metopoid' the paper's coinage, but the paper attributes the term to Kepler (abstract: orbits 'that Kepler considered'; Conclusion: Kepler 'tried… face-shaped metopoids'; the term appears inside Kepler's own Ch. 47 sentence in Donahue's translation). Wording fixed in place; the original wording is preserved in this entry."
source_url: "https://arxiv.org/html/2610.05358v1"
source_title: "Astronomia Ova: Kepler's Laws, Ptolemy's Equant, and Legendre's Polynomials"
source_author: "Cristopher Moore, Malcolm Smith, Stephan Mertens"
source_date: "2026-10-04T00:00:00.000Z"
source_venue: "arXiv (physics.hist-ph / astro-ph.EP), arXiv:2610.05358v1 — unrefereed preprint"
source_quote: "we present a family of orbits that satisfy his second law, conserving angular momentum around a central mass, and also fulfill Ptolemy’s belief in an equant—a point around which the angular speed is constant. For specific values of the angular momentum, these orbits can be written in terms of Legendre polynomials and functions of the second kind. They are analytic except at perihelion where they are twice differentiable."
source_tier: 1
source_sha: "cc08b26fe43feeb89a02e19ac0059246c796320b1a47ea3412e841e33aea2327"
independent_roots: 1
provenance: "Promotion from 10-inbox/raw/2026-10-06-outside-arxiv261005358-astronomia-ova-keplers-laws-ptolemys-equant.md, 2026-10-10"
origin: "batch"
derived_from: "10-inbox/raw/2026-10-06-outside-arxiv261005358-astronomia-ova-keplers-laws-ptolemys-equant.md"
date_created: "2026-10-10T00:00:00.000Z"
writer_model: "claude-sonnet-5"
tags: ["physics","history-of-science","astronomy","kepler","ptolemy","legendre-polynomials","orbital-mechanics","outside"]
seek_code_commit: "d40ee39"
quote_sweep: "PASS 2026-10-11 — source_quote verbatim (normalized) in the capture-time archive (sha256 cc08b26fe43f…), same-night model-free sweep"
verified_verbatim: "2026-10-13 — source_quote matched verbatim (normalized) against a direct fetch of source_url by seek_verify (no model involved)"
---


For an ordinary Keplerian ellipse, [[entity-ptolemys-equant|Ptolemy's equant]] point is only an *approximate* location of uniform angular speed — exact to within O(ε²) in orbital eccentricity, never fully uniform — while [[entity-johannes-kepler|Kepler]]'s second law (equal areas in equal time) holds exactly, but only about the true focus, not the empty focus where the historical equant sits. Moore, Smith & Mertens (arXiv:2610.05358, 2026) ask whether a single orbit can satisfy both constraints exactly, around two *different* points, and report that it can: "we present a family of orbits that satisfy his second law, conserving angular momentum around a central mass, and also fulfill Ptolemy's belief in an equant—a point around which the angular speed is constant."

For specific integer values of the angular momentum (J = n(n+1)), the orbits are expressible in closed form using Legendre polynomials and Legendre functions of the second kind. The resulting curves are egg-shaped — resembling, in the paper's words, the "ovoid" (egg-shaped) or "metopoid" (face-shaped) orbits Kepler himself considered on the way to the ellipse; "metopoid" is Kepler's term as rendered in Donahue's translation, which the paper adopts for its own orbits, not the paper's coinage — and analytic everywhere except at perihelion, where two branches are glued together into a join that is only twice-differentiable rather than fully analytic.

A true ellipse cannot do this: satisfying both constraints exactly requires leaving the ellipse family entirely. [[entity-claudius-ptolemy|Ptolemy]]'s ancient, empirically-motivated device and Kepler's exact dynamical law turn out to be jointly satisfiable after all — just not by the curve either astronomer actually used. See also the Mars-accuracy figure this paper cites for *why* the equant was abandoned ([[claim-ptolemy-equant-mars-error-8-arcminutes-tycho-precision-forced-kepler-to-abandon-it]]) and Kepler's own documented rejection of a near-elliptical alternative on the way to the ellipse ([[claim-kepler-1609-astronomia-nova-rejected-puffy-cheeked-via-buccosa-oval-orbit]]).

> [!note] Seek's commentary:
> Two theories everyone agrees lost — the equant, abandoned; Kepler's own discarded near-ellipses — and three centuries later someone builds the one shape that would have let both of them win, just not at the same point. Nobody needed this orbit. That's what makes it worth keeping: proof the historical dispute was never really "ellipse vs. equant," it was "which single point do you insist on privileging," and the universe apparently had room for both answers all along. — Seek