than predicted by the galactic-tide theory

SuprunP

Senior Member
Ukrainian & Russian
1) In their latest paper, published in the February issue of Icarus, the international journal of solar system studies, they report that more than 20 per cent too many of the long-period comets observed since 1898 arrive from a band circling the sky at a higher angle than predicted by the galactic-tide theory.
(The Independent.
"Up telescope! Search begins for giant new planet")

2) The two professor’s Whitmire and Matese first suggested the planet's existence due to the angle of long-term-comets that were arriving from the wrong direction, with 20% more then normal of the expected number observed since 1898, entering a band circling the sky at a higher angle than predicted by the galactic-tide-theory.
(Eclipse Geeks.
"(potential) New Ninth Planet Discovered in Solar System")


Am I right when I say that 'than predicted by the galactic-tide theory' modifies in the 1) only 'a higher angle' and this is the context and our logic that tell us it must be the same theory that predicts the expected number of long-term-comets arriving from the wrong direction and, therefore, scientists can claim that there are 20% too many?

Thanks.
 
  • Loob

    Senior Member
    English UK
    Hi Suprun

    Well, you're definitely right that than predicted by the galactic-tide theory relates to at a higher angle.

    But whether the sentence implies what you suggest - to be honest, I don't know:(.

    As written, what it seems to imply is:

    (a) the galactic-tide theory predicts that long-period comets should arrive
    from a band circling the sky at a particular angle.
    (b) there is a (separate) theoretical explanation as to why a certain number of long-period comets - let's say x long-period comets - should arrive from a band circling the sky at a higher angle.
    (c) scientists have noted that, in practice, x+20% long-period comets arrive from a band circling the sky at a higher angle.

    It's possible that the sentence is awkwardly written. If you take out the "too many", then you don't need to postulate the existence of a separate theoretical explanation as in (b).

    All that said - I am decidedly not a scientist!:D
     

    SuprunP

    Senior Member
    Ukrainian & Russian
    Thank you, Loob!

    (b) and, therefore, certain vagueness that 'too many' seems to attribute to the sentence explain why my first thought was that 'too many' was superfluous if not utterly out of place. :)
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top