Passage Discussion

[noah]

P1: old theory and why it's wrong: astronomers used to think asteroids couldn't have satellites, they're wrong, cool bowling ball example

P2: Possible evidence supporting better theory: we see what might be asteroid satellites!

P3: Details about evidence: extra eclipse of Herculina asterioid indicates a satellite

P4: Effect of evidence on theory: now everyone sees secondary eclipses! Statistically, some of those must be wrong.

P5: How new theory could be more widely accepted: doubters want to see clear photo that rules out other reasons for secondary eclipse

Scale:
asteroids can have satellites vs. they can't

[tzyc]

I thought astronomer did not deny the existence of satellites but just think it does not accompany asteroids (so exist somewhere in the solar system)...but in definition, "satellites" can exist only with asteroids and if it does not accompany asteroids, it means it does not exist in the solar system right?
Also it says "Theoreticians could have told them otherwise" which means they did not tell in the past, but they hold the idea all the time?

Thank you

[noah]

I thought astronomer did not deny the existence of satellites but just think it does not accompany asteroids (so exist somewhere in the solar system)...but in definition, "satellites" can exist only with asteroids and if it does not accompany asteroids, it means it does not exist in the solar system right?
Also it says "Theoreticians could have told them otherwise" which means they did not tell in the past, but they hold the idea all the time?

Thank you

tz, I'm not exactly sure what you're asking.

"Satellites" are not limited to things circling around asteroids. From what I can see, our moon is a satellite of earth.

As for the sentence starting on line 5, it does seem that the theoreticians knew for some time. I'm unsure of why that's important in understanding the general passage though.

[tzyc]

Thank you for the reply.
I wanted to double check the grammar (could have~), so that when I meet the same one in different passage I can understand it...maybe it'd be important in that passage...