(meteorobs) Definition of a meteor (was Re: Fifth grade sciencebook)

[MexicoDoug at aol.com]

Hola Geo, Ed, List,
 
(Ed, Just saw GeoZay's before posting this, and have to agree.  Here  is my 
complementary version which was in the works as well)
 
Let's ask a genious his opinion:
 
Newton coined the word meteoroid (Oxford English Dictionary): 
 
“The term meteoroid will be used to designate such a body before it enters  
the earth’s atmosphere.”
 
The moment it begins the luminous phase it cannot be argued that it is not  
in Earth's atmosphere (regardless of modern definitions of outer space which  
significantly post date Newton, and mainly are used to define "astronaut",  
etc.).  No doubt Newton considered its designation next a "firey meteor"  (the 
popular term then) during the luminous phase and that is the distinction he  is 
making.  Meteorites were not yet recognized, so there was no need for  the 
definition.  However, since meteo- is an atmospheric event, Newton  logically 
wanted to drop the term "firey" and refer to it as just a meteor (like  ice 
meteor and and water meteor, etc., which were also valid terms at the  time.
 
Then around 1803, more than 100 years after Newton's time, scientists  
recognized that rocks on earth were residuals of meteors, so the term first  began 
as a geological "ite", a type of rock to study.  Apparently no  lexographers 
one bothered to worry about what else a meteor was called as it  fell after it 
ceased to be incandescent.
 
I think Newton would have logically still called it a meteor, since he was  
an astronomer, physicist and mathematician, but not a geologist.  But the  
geologists got involved and published their glossaries, and the lexicons  
mindlessly added the words to the dictionary with seeing if they scientifically  
hermetically fit together.
 
So while I think Newton would have had no problem calling it a meteor, I  
think he would have scoffed at a geologist who insisted "rocks from  space had to 
touch ground and roll to a stop to be considered out of play",  i.e. 
"meteorite".  I would have this point of view since a meteorite is not  technically a 
geologist's area ("GEO" = earth), but rather an astronomer's or  
meteorologist's.
 
So if a geologist is talking about a rock, he ought to be able to call it a  
meteorite anytime, as he studies rocks, and these don't need to come out of 
any  formation.  They are not caused by sedimentary, igneous, nor metamorphic  
processes on this planet.
 
And an astronomer or meteorologist ought to be able to call it a meteor as  
this is the historical term and without doubt would have been used by Newton,  
unless he invented another word which he certainly was on a roll to do  since 
he started this definition of "stages" (which geologists did not consider  
very carefully).  Perhaps he would have like a word like "bolide".   That works, 
but the system is still haywire with micrometeorites which spend  time 
circulating in atmospheric or even oceanic currents.  But strangely  I get this 
feeling that a micrometeorite is fine to be called just that as  it floats down or 
around.  How nice not to get geologists to deeply  involved...
 
"Meteor Crater" probably is not the unpardonable misnomer we would be led  to 
believe.  I am sure Newton would have had no objections at all...
 
Bottom line, if you agree with the above, meteorite can be used as soon as  
the luminous portion begins in anticipation, meteor can be used at all times  
before the ground even though in popular language it now is sometimes more  
restrictive to the luminous portion because the useage was glossed over when the  
issue became "clouded".  It depends on who you pretend to be as to what you  
call it.  I still feel an astronomer can call it a satellite as soon as it  is 
captured by earth.
 
Saludos, Doug