(meteorobs) Definition of a meteor (was Re: Fifth gradesciencebook)

[Swift, Wesley]

Doug,

Nice!  Linguistically it seems to be about hats:

	Wear the geologist's hat and it is a meteorite
	Wear the atmosphere watcher's hat and it is a meteor
	Wear the astronomer's hat and it is a meteoroid. 

Language is very often about point of view.  If the hat fits, enjoy.
	(Now that is a story to tell the kids!)

Wes


-----Original Message-----
From: meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org
[mailto:meteorobs-bounces at meteorobs.org] On Behalf Of MexicoDoug at aol.com
Sent: Thursday, April 28, 2005 11:59 AM
To: meteorobs at meteorobs.org
Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Definition of a meteor (was Re: Fifth
gradesciencebook)

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
---
Mailing list meteorobs
meteorobs at meteorobs.org
http://lists.meteorobs.org/mailman/listinfo/meteorobs