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

[Robert Verish]

Just made a quick scan of the Meteorobs Archives to
see the most recent posts, and I see a number of them
by GeoZay, which indicates to me that George has posed
his trick question again.  I call it a “trick
question” because there is no “correct” answer, at
least none that fits, based on what has been deemed
the “approved” definition for meteoroid and meteorite.
 Apparently, there is no “approved” term for the
conundrum that George poses regarding dark-phase
flight.  Definitely, George is correct about the
“approved” definition of a meteoroid, and that it
excludes its usage for this object during it fall to
earth.  But the very same group of astronomers that
defined a meteoroid, also approved the definition for
“meteorite”, which excludes its usage for that same
purpose.  So, we’re back to square one.  

Old timers to this list are very familiar with this
discussion, since it seems to get repeatedly raised by
George every other year, and they probably make a deep
sigh when they see it brought up again, knowing that
it will still go unresolved. And many of them look at
what I consider to be a valid discussion as just
proselytizing by George and his trying to win over
some more converts to redefining the term meteorite. 

Which brings me to the question that I continually
ask:  When all the astronomers got together to define
and approve all of these astronomical terms that we
are discussing, why did they stop short and not assign
a term to this physical object?  Were they remiss, or
were they unable to come to an agreement, or was it
intentionally omitted?   But then, this same august
body of astronomers deemed it necessary to
specifically define the term “METEORTITE”, as well,
which makes this gap in their terminology so much more
inexplicable.  Understanding what was their intention
in leaving this gap in their terminology would go a
long way in helping us to resolve this issue.

In my opinion, this august body of astronomers dropped
the ball.  They dropped the ball when they didn’t
redefine what a meteor should be.  They stuck to the
archaic meteorological definition that had as its
basis the concept of rocks falling from the sky as
being heretical.  If they had modernized the
definition of a meteor and stretched it to include not
only the light phenomenon, but the physical object
that produced it, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE GROUND, this
gap in “approved” terminology would be completely
filled.  

Instead of redefining what a meteorite should be,
redefine what is a meteor and you solve the conundrum.


Bob V.